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
|
Return-Path: <jimmyjack@gmail.com>
Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org
[172.17.192.35])
by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0F596BCB
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Wed, 15 Jul 2015 16:06:54 +0000 (UTC)
X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6
Received: from mail-wg0-f46.google.com (mail-wg0-f46.google.com [74.125.82.46])
by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 560AF202
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Wed, 15 Jul 2015 16:06:53 +0000 (UTC)
Received: by wgkl9 with SMTP id l9so37508080wgk.1
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Wed, 15 Jul 2015 09:06:52 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113;
h=content-type:mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc
:content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to;
bh=UNVQ67sCAem5818HawkRYun2JmVsY8nLiVKmELQTRHM=;
b=xFRpvdih3I+2Wltic06/qD8PUIrWUylsA6WH9bmXV4XBQmMDFNb1PpOccgFHT0A7hV
6gCDOKGjt8UFqAG0kgmbNYi2KOEsDyBh0tgDC4+ezGb3zD2cewDgMZLd97Mk+lpFR8XQ
DUjNma2pz+oTUWpEHKDzhaPZEoTP/G5aazuISj0ZT6pqv1PC5NXCx/RWlgK516L4hV15
ugb2jRFM5J4XFdiT6SIbyLl0EQum81uxH1buqw2f9o7IfJQOvIjphkaIWeGS+zBhT3zP
gwTJGOuPcjjxx3LAK97Ot7Hmb9ZC8xwr2eyLZkvZYYCv9AbLX+XEV22CkJFxEHgfLzSX
OSlg==
X-Received: by 10.181.13.195 with SMTP id fa3mr423186wid.7.1436976412161;
Wed, 15 Jul 2015 09:06:52 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [10.0.0.210] ([194.46.128.92])
by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id fm8sm434287wib.9.2015.07.15.09.06.50
(version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128);
Wed, 15 Jul 2015 09:06:51 -0700 (PDT)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 9.0 \(3067\))
From: Me <jimmyjack@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <20150715155903.GC20029@savin.petertodd.org>
Date: Wed, 15 Jul 2015 09:06:48 -0700
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <E724A120-7F85-488B-81CD-B1CD8EB227E3@gmail.com>
References: <24662b038abc45da7f3990e12a649b8a@airmail.cc>
<55A66FA9.4010506@thinlink.com>
<20150715151825.GB20029@savin.petertodd.org>
<CDB5FC27-F3F0-44F7-BBC6-670ACAE740D2@gmail.com>
<20150715155903.GC20029@savin.petertodd.org>
To: Peter Todd <pete@petertodd.org>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3067)
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.7 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED,
DKIM_VALID, DKIM_VALID_AU, FREEMAIL_FROM,
RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW 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] Significant losses by double-spending unconfirmed
transactions
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: Wed, 15 Jul 2015 16:06:54 -0000
Have you talk to them? If not, how can you be sure they don=E2=80=99t =
run large number of standard nodes and actually make the network =
stronger? Personally I never bring claims like this if I just assume. A =
lot of people in the community really trust you, do you realize you =
potentially hurt them for no reason?
btw I do not work for them nor have any money invested in them in case =
anybody asks
> On Jul 15, 2015, at 8:59 AM, Peter Todd <pete@petertodd.org> wrote:
>=20
> On Wed, Jul 15, 2015 at 08:49:13AM -0700, Me wrote:
>>> Blockcypher's "confidence factor" model(1)
>>> under the hood - yet another one of those sybil attacking network
>>> monitoring things
>>=20
>>=20
>> Peter, I noticed on your twitter you have a lot of bad things to say =
about Blockcypher and their business model (which I might not full =
agree, but totally respect), can you share any evidence they perform any =
form of Sybil attack on the network, please.=20
>=20
> For Blockcypher to succesfully do what they claim to do they need to
> connect to a large % of nodes on the network; that right there is a
> sybil attack. It's an approach that uses up connection slots for the
> entire network and isn't scalable; if more than a few services were
> doing that the Bitcoin network would become significantly less =
reliable,
> at some point collapsing entirely.
>=20
> --=20
> 'peter'[:-1]@petertodd.org
> 0000000000000000093f699ccdb323aa638af1131249ec2e1bacbf367163807a
|
