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
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
184
185
186
187
188
189
190
191
192
193
194
195
196
197
198
199
200
201
202
203
204
205
206
207
208
209
210
211
212
213
|
Return-Path: <odinn.cyberguerrilla@riseup.net>
Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org
[172.17.192.35])
by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E93AE1DBD
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Sun, 4 Oct 2015 06:59:36 +0000 (UTC)
X-Greylist: domain auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6
Received: from mx1.riseup.net (mx1.riseup.net [198.252.153.129])
by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 532D0AF
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Sun, 4 Oct 2015 06:59:36 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from cotinga.riseup.net (unknown [10.0.1.161])
(using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits))
(Client CN "*.riseup.net",
Issuer "COMODO RSA Domain Validation Secure Server CA" (verified OK))
by mx1.riseup.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D259FC20D0;
Sat, 3 Oct 2015 23:59:35 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=riseup.net; s=squak;
t=1443941976; bh=M8YcjGoj6L03qn0FS4pXvKJaHk/VBr/+EFh9XuUBnGU=;
h=Date:From:To:CC:Subject:References:In-Reply-To:From;
b=gz4dbU3S4rJZW7XDFrx+LuICS+3kfPX45Wgzyoz+0RV4c0/Wxf9Wkm8QKbwCFb0EZ
x+C6s9lQl4wqd02tS1mema6EtNMPiv3UHq94d/hFOLbIDY87Z6BFp4rX76AtUh4z+s
TFPlqaENJCGSihvqy0pGfqLVRB1yLr4TwO3MaYrw=
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1])
(Authenticated sender: odinn.cyberguerrilla)
with ESMTPSA id D76811C0362
Message-ID: <5610CE4F.1000800@riseup.net>
Date: Sun, 04 Oct 2015 06:59:27 +0000
From: odinn <odinn.cyberguerrilla@riseup.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Chris Pacia <ctpacia@gmail.com>, Peter Todd <pete@petertodd.org>,
justusranvier@riseup.net, gmaxwell@gmail.com, gmaxwell@gmail.com
References: <6EC9DDF352DC4838AE9B088AB372428A25E1F42A@DS04> <20150817212912.GA15817@muck> <CAB+qUq79BgiTGFS1yLxxogg8907jCUtNDmBhnikLWc1fqofNyg@mail.gmail.com> <55D4124B.6070700@riseup.net>
<5610CB2F.90002@riseup.net>
In-Reply-To: <5610CB2F.90002@riseup.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Virus-Scanned: clamav-milter 0.98.7 at mx1.riseup.net
X-Virus-Status: Clean
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.7 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED,
DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW,T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD,
UNPARSEABLE_RELAY autolearn=ham version=3.3.1
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on
smtp1.linux-foundation.org
Cc: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Incentives to run full nodes
X-BeenThere: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Bitcoin Development 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, 04 Oct 2015 06:59:37 -0000
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA512
(Note: Due to being very tired I have issued a correction to my post
below so as to make sure I have not been misunderstood.)
odinn via bitcoin-dev:
> Hello,
>
> Some background on this....
>
>
> A very long while ago I posted to the bitcoin-development mailing
> list some ABIS concepts having to do with microdonations:
>
> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2013-December/
00
>
>
3791.html
> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2014-January/0
04
>
>
049.html
>
> And an interesting post (which led me to explore BCN) via nullc:
> https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7765455 (posted 1 & 1/3 year
> ago).
(I realize the way I wrote the above paragraph made it sound like I
posted the above post at https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7765455
but I just want to point out here that I did not; I meant to say that
I read an interesting post which led me to explore BCN that was
published by nullc.)
>
>
> Anyway, some long while ago this discussion came up about
> "Incentives to run full nodes," and the last post in the thread was
> here:
>
> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2014-June/0060
83
>
>
.html
>
> Since that time, some new developments have come to light which
> the participants in that thread may find interesting;
>
> Please see in part,
>
> https://bytecoin.org/news/bytecoin-wallet-1.0.8-release-introduces-mic
ro
>
>
- -donations/
>
> This presents a working implementation in BCN; the concept as
> implemented there is arguably viable in BTC as well.
>
> Please explore, play with, discuss, etc.
>
> Cheers,
>
> - O
>
> odinn:
>> Potentially relevant...
>
>> "Incentivizing the running of full nodes"
>
>> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2014-June/006
0
>
>>
28
>
>
> .html
>
>> (However, the issue to which I referred here is now closed)
>
>> View whole thread:
>
>> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2014-June/thr
e
>
>>
ad
>
>
> .html#6028
>
>> On 08/17/2015 02:44 PM, Chris Pacia via bitcoin-dev wrote:
>
>>> On Aug 17, 2015 5:29 PM, "Peter Todd via bitcoin-dev"
>>> <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
>>> <mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>> wrote: From the
>>> point of view of a
>>>> wallet, it's not very secure to use Hearn-style SPV mode, and
>>>> volunteers running full nodes doesn't help things. Sybil
>>>> attacking the IP address space is pretty easy in comparison
>>>> to aquiring hashing power sufficient to create false
>>>> confirmations, so any attacker able to do the former will
>>>> likely be running the full node you're connecting too
>>>> anyway. Ultimately, Hearn-style SPV is a close approximation
>>>> to just trusting anyone with a non-trivial amount of hashing
>>>> power. (and getting that is surprisingly easy, e.g. w/ SPV
>>>> mining)
>
>>> Can you explain how the spv node fails against an attacker with
>>> a non-trivial amount of hash power where a full node doesn't?
>>> To attack an spv wallet that is waiting for 6 or 10
>>> confirmations, you would not only need to Sybil them but also
>>> summon a massive amount of hashing power to create a chain of
>>> headers (while forgoing the opportunity to mine valid blocks
>>> with that hash power).
>
>>> But could someone with that much hash power not Sybil a full
>>> node and give them a chain for valid blocks (but on an orphan
>>> fork)? The failure model doesn't seem specific to spv to me.
>
>
>
>>> _______________________________________________ bitcoin-dev
>>> mailing list bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
>>> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________ bitcoin-dev mailing
> list bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
>
- --
http://abis.io ~
"a protocol concept to enable decentralization
and expansion of a giving economy, and a new social good"
https://keybase.io/odinn
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
iQEcBAEBCgAGBQJWEM5PAAoJEGxwq/inSG8C48UH/A9mfVaP2h1nOD2po2yaDCLA
xJuMIhrgo81q+WAbwFk4ac3bu3R/RzLLM7yA2IWDiPJrt6gCvEgIjzsHcG7+q5Bd
s7dPEFnibPzpqXjnVh6FcfpuW/MCT3AXiSvnsKiLh99v+oz9g50fIpOMYuOTk/Sy
816xqKbDfKEHzkWzeOv5gV61AzNS7PDWjfRqRV/Om5+J/MZt/kgXJ8UqEVmYbLXM
wIOWA1Vl4BZtQBiQpyDBjBUDhU0YboVXOMIbmx+ffDXKydcErLwFOCBp3XjVOMti
y0B56kmPko5xKH4/n53WFLH32ILd7dZNtK4KzhmyPjeJ+yXdfFTmR3Ayo4wvP2s=
=UvrH
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
|
