1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
|
Return-Path: <pete@petertodd.org>
Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org
[172.17.192.35])
by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id CA72B26C
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Sun, 28 Aug 2016 08:26:52 +0000 (UTC)
X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6
Received: from outmail149112.authsmtp.co.uk (outmail149112.authsmtp.co.uk
[62.13.149.112])
by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3DD1787
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Sun, 28 Aug 2016 08:26:51 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from mail-c232.authsmtp.com (mail-c232.authsmtp.com [62.13.128.232])
by punt21.authsmtp.com (8.14.2/8.14.2/) with ESMTP id u7S8QnvM023341;
Sun, 28 Aug 2016 09:26:49 +0100 (BST)
Received: from petertodd.org (ec2-52-5-185-120.compute-1.amazonaws.com
[52.5.185.120]) (authenticated bits=0)
by mail.authsmtp.com (8.14.2/8.14.2/) with ESMTP id u7S8Qk6I037513
(version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO);
Sun, 28 Aug 2016 09:26:47 +0100 (BST)
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1])
by petertodd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 6F46F400B1;
Sun, 28 Aug 2016 08:23:27 +0000 (UTC)
In-Reply-To: <CAH+Axy4ahvQOG5=jGn68u0m5dTTmFCJ0isfOEt-Be=63ot55dg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <20160824014634.GA19905@fedora-21-dvm>
<CAH+Axy4ahvQOG5=jGn68u0m5dTTmFCJ0isfOEt-Be=63ot55dg@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset=UTF-8
From: Peter Todd <pete@petertodd.org>
Date: Sun, 28 Aug 2016 04:37:29 +0000
To: James MacWhyte <macwhyte@gmail.com>,
Bitcoin Protocol Discussion <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
Message-ID: <82507740-C4A3-4AF2-BA02-3B29E5FECDE4@petertodd.org>
X-Server-Quench: 298e7efb-6cf9-11e6-829e-00151795d556
X-AuthReport-Spam: If SPAM / abuse - report it at:
http://www.authsmtp.com/abuse
X-AuthRoute: OCd2Yg0TA1ZNQRgX IjsJECJaVQIpKltL GxAVKBZePFsRUQkR
aQdMdAoUGUATAgsB AmAbW11eUlt7XWs7 bghPaBtcak9QXgdq
T0pMXVMcUQILCX1a AGceUR53dgYIfHl4 ZwhgV3gOWxEsJ1t7
ERhdCGwHMGF9YGIW BV1YdwJRcQRDe0tA b1YxNiYHcQ5VPz4z
GA41ejw8IwAXAy1N Qx0EKRo/T0gKFT8x QQxKPTIpEFwdQDko
ZwNhYhQnF0ELOUU/ PRMMUEgEM1VaJgpD FUVAGzdUIVUAQSVj
NRldQUMVDDxaR08E
X-Authentic-SMTP: 61633532353630.1037:706
X-AuthFastPath: 0 (Was 255)
X-AuthSMTP-Origin: 52.5.185.120/25
X-AuthVirus-Status: No virus detected - but ensure you scan with your own
anti-virus system.
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.0 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00, DATE_IN_PAST_03_06,
RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW autolearn=no version=3.3.1
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on
smtp1.linux-foundation.org
Cc: Jeff Coleman <jeff@ledgerlabs.io>
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Capital Efficient Honeypots w/ "Scorched Earth"
Doublespending Protection
X-BeenThere: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Bitcoin Protocol Discussion <bitcoin-dev.lists.linuxfoundation.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/options/bitcoin-dev>,
<mailto:bitcoin-dev-request@lists.linuxfoundation.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/>
List-Post: <mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
List-Help: <mailto:bitcoin-dev-request@lists.linuxfoundation.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev>,
<mailto:bitcoin-dev-request@lists.linuxfoundation.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 28 Aug 2016 08:26:52 -0000
On 24 August 2016 22:54:47 GMT-04:00, James MacWhyte <macwhyte@gmail.com> wrote:
>I've always assumed honeypots were meant to look like regular, yet
>poorly-secured, assets.
Not at all. Most servers have zero reason to have any Bitcoin's accessible via them, so the presence of BTC privkeys is a gigantic red flag that they are part of a honeypot.
> If the intruder could identify this as a
>honeypot
>by the strange setup (presigned, non-standard transactions lying
>around)
>and was aware that the creator intended to doublespend as soon as the
>transaction was discovered, wouldn't they instead prefer to not touch
>anything and wait for a non-bait target to appear?
Re-read my last section on the "scorched earth" disincentive to doublespend the intruder.
|
