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
|
Received: from sog-mx-3.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.193]
helo=mx.sourceforge.net)
by sfs-ml-2.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76)
(envelope-from <gmaxwell@gmail.com>) id 1YsGO2-0000a2-Cb
for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Tue, 12 May 2015 20:02:42 +0000
Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-3.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of gmail.com
designates 209.85.213.173 as permitted sender)
client-ip=209.85.213.173; envelope-from=gmaxwell@gmail.com;
helo=mail-ig0-f173.google.com;
Received: from mail-ig0-f173.google.com ([209.85.213.173])
by sog-mx-3.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128)
(Exim 4.76) id 1YsGO1-0000lb-EN
for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Tue, 12 May 2015 20:02:42 +0000
Received: by igbyr2 with SMTP id yr2so119195993igb.0
for <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>;
Tue, 12 May 2015 13:02:36 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.50.114.9 with SMTP id jc9mr1937327igb.49.1431460956178; Tue,
12 May 2015 13:02:36 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.107.15.82 with HTTP; Tue, 12 May 2015 13:02:36 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <CAJHLa0PDbxuqRHuGNhsyvLpAaDq=ZHSg_u-Sb7FqNVnYrhFkFg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CANJO25J1WRHtfQLVXUB2s_sjj39pTPWmixAcXNJ3t-5os8RPmQ@mail.gmail.com>
<CANJO25JTtfmfsOQYOzJeksJn3CoKE3W8iLGsRko-_xd4XhB3ZA@mail.gmail.com>
<CAJHLa0O5OxaX5g3u=dnCY6Lz_gK3QZgQEPNcWNVRD4JziwAmvg@mail.gmail.com>
<20150512171640.GA32606@savin.petertodd.org>
<CAE-z3OV3VdSoiTSfASwYHr1CjZSqio303sqGq_1Y9yaYgov2sw@mail.gmail.com>
<CAAS2fgRzGkcJbWbJmFN2-NSJGUcLdPKp0q7FjM0x7WDvHoRq=g@mail.gmail.com>
<CANJO25+qURmDzsMgnm7+tsw7icFO--gWhmKmQPuNQCoh_R2big@mail.gmail.com>
<CAJHLa0PDbxuqRHuGNhsyvLpAaDq=ZHSg_u-Sb7FqNVnYrhFkFg@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 12 May 2015 20:02:36 +0000
Message-ID: <CAAS2fgTCMeNdcmMxURxaoAJn8=XZnTP8Gp6PbRk5w7KXAZ8t3g@mail.gmail.com>
From: Gregory Maxwell <gmaxwell@gmail.com>
To: Jeff Garzik <jgarzik@bitpay.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
X-Spam-Score: -1.6 (-)
X-Spam-Report: Spam Filtering performed by mx.sourceforge.net.
See http://spamassassin.org/tag/ for more details.
-1.5 SPF_CHECK_PASS SPF reports sender host as permitted sender for
sender-domain
0.0 FREEMAIL_FROM Sender email is commonly abused enduser mail provider
(gmaxwell[at]gmail.com)
-0.0 SPF_PASS SPF: sender matches SPF record
-0.1 DKIM_VALID_AU Message has a valid DKIM or DK signature from
author's domain
0.1 DKIM_SIGNED Message has a DKIM or DK signature,
not necessarily valid
-0.1 DKIM_VALID Message has at least one valid DKIM or DK signature
X-Headers-End: 1YsGO1-0000lb-EN
Cc: Bitcoin Dev <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>
Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] Proposed additional options for pruned
nodes
X-BeenThere: bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: <bitcoin-development.lists.sourceforge.net>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development>,
<mailto:bitcoin-development-request@lists.sourceforge.net?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://sourceforge.net/mailarchive/forum.php?forum_name=bitcoin-development>
List-Post: <mailto:bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>
List-Help: <mailto:bitcoin-development-request@lists.sourceforge.net?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development>,
<mailto:bitcoin-development-request@lists.sourceforge.net?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 12 May 2015 20:02:42 -0000
On Tue, May 12, 2015 at 7:38 PM, Jeff Garzik <jgarzik@bitpay.com> wrote:
> One general problem is that security is weakened when an attacker can DoS a
> small part of the chain by DoS'ing a small number of nodes - yet the impact
> is a network-wide DoS because nobody can complete a sync.
It might be more interesting to think of that attack as a bandwidth
exhaustion DOS attack on the archive nodes... if you can't get a copy
without them, thats where you'll go.
So the question arises: does the option make some nodes that would
have been archive not be? Probably some-- but would it do so much that
it would offset the gain of additional copies of the data when those
attacks are not going no. I suspect not.
It's also useful to give people incremental ways to participate even
when they can't swollow the whole pill; or choose to provide the
resource thats cheap for them to provide. In particular, if there is
only two kinds of full nodes-- archive and pruned; then the archive
nodes take both a huge disk and bandwidth cost; where as if there are
fractional then archives take low(er) bandwidth unless the fractionals
get DOS attacked.
|
