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
|
Return-Path: <earonesty@gmail.com>
Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org
[172.17.192.35])
by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id BD944B93
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Thu, 4 May 2017 13:15:07 +0000 (UTC)
X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6
Received: from mail-qt0-f179.google.com (mail-qt0-f179.google.com
[209.85.216.179])
by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5FAFC15A
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Thu, 4 May 2017 13:15:03 +0000 (UTC)
Received: by mail-qt0-f179.google.com with SMTP id n4so9525620qte.2
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Thu, 04 May 2017 06:15:03 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025;
h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id
:subject:to:cc;
bh=RonCcyMRBMQD2Ni0rYI6q1/HeenUvliYmJPmohDFRSE=;
b=piemVcKSrmSj50NOuDj3QuG4FRo0DtelR/yRDO5B4LWQggC523KdFYekL9OEIdvSd3
kPaTMx7r+yRqsY0U8nnAo47z9wMl2A/yRl52TL5yN0ATUS41Kd4M50m3SD4K37baCa/y
bHEdNX/dnN942NYIr8mquymDBd9e20scrhtoMkjLmtpRDYKij1/IwE4QJ0aFGl+T4CQq
DJi0kjfrzTWq5zKe6Bl9bOQUzu4Y09BQuBApz2tT6rSNFFiZCGGJXC3wSkvQttiRrSRf
o2Iu/LvrqUDD7Uf4QQzse87JCguvMjFr3NtkhUBsQlkyke/8xtaIh7cAGB+oYYIeoagm
uSYA==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
d=1e100.net; s=20161025;
h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:from
:date:message-id:subject:to:cc;
bh=RonCcyMRBMQD2Ni0rYI6q1/HeenUvliYmJPmohDFRSE=;
b=nRPVs2JzJFI+MZWB0Ei7MReaUG2v6s7fjUufwcjCPLam+YIVI6ZZHvUQZ+FU0ooJjO
JGiTNh01XFm6L/zoa2YWHVPVPf1IJuMIEki7AYPPWQhRmcuY3SFPXY3cgyRExhzNo+EU
GQkI/oFsd4Ha7fe5Fyq1D61o8bnGuA0wXFNbdbfdtcZK+V4KRv+TM/UEoALpKmQPbdmb
cuzc6rl6Lkv18qph3IUoSSSDII0ml4iJcRSgLS+8taipVnM6ftf7mOkVozLLYWu9zZy1
xLelxKXf296Yi2sNeZV8N9PkAWlv8dNX96YHaFMBbAPWku1lw2yvQvcF9X8mmwS3srM6
/Whg==
X-Gm-Message-State: AN3rC/6gMJfrX7HYi+d+Q7mU2p4Dq4F3+QB2uWWGxDCq1iG8fXKHoTJz
C8yc8kD0dqrE2dGmcLmHk2SgRJuSgw==
X-Received: by 10.200.36.44 with SMTP id c41mr35158179qtc.223.1493903702526;
Thu, 04 May 2017 06:15:02 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Sender: earonesty@gmail.com
Received: by 10.200.39.43 with HTTP; Thu, 4 May 2017 06:15:02 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <CAAS2fgQYhi3oqncrNU+26E4JoHHfQMJAyTGtJY-ZD6J9O7NPsQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAJowKg+snAUjbCFkTybNqiJCy=d_M3s5k376y1B=rVqD8WCOXA@mail.gmail.com>
<CAAS2fgQYhi3oqncrNU+26E4JoHHfQMJAyTGtJY-ZD6J9O7NPsQ@mail.gmail.com>
From: Erik Aronesty <erik@q32.com>
Date: Thu, 4 May 2017 09:15:02 -0400
X-Google-Sender-Auth: unkgbrgheBiclvxPTTj3RdS8DyA
Message-ID: <CAJowKgKpiqeHAFn+tbZAqH9Oojhm8K+8EcJz9kMoU+qgK0PBHA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Gregory Maxwell <greg@xiph.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a1141039a848fa0054eb28f78
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED,
DKIM_VALID,FREEMAIL_FROM,HTML_MESSAGE,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
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Thu, 04 May 2017 13:23:02 +0000
Cc: Bitcoin Protocol Discussion <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Full node "tip" function
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: Thu, 04 May 2017 13:15:07 -0000
--001a1141039a848fa0054eb28f78
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
> Greg
> The primary result would be paying people to sybil attack the network.
I cannot imagine the benefit to replicating an ip address in this case,
except maybe you think that you would be more likely to be selected as a
peer? But there would be no actual advantage since download peers are
selected based on throughput and actual blocks served.
Also, since this makes the network far more resistant to DDOS attacks, it
has added benefits.
> Luke:
> paying for services is in general a great idea, but one that Bitcoin
> can much better serve once Lightning is in production.
I agree, if lightning networks were baked in, then the tips could be as
granular as "per block downloaded", or even (outlandish seeming now, but
maybe not in a future where there is a "public rpc api") "per rpc call".
Miners and business users would certainly pay for high quality services.
Spinning up new nodes without a tip and relying on the "free network" would
probably take more time, for example.
I suspect that if income were even a small possibility the number of full
nodes would vastly increase.
Sybil attacks seem irrelevant as long as reasonable QOS metrics are stored
per peer.
On Wed, May 3, 2017 at 5:53 PM, Gregory Maxwell <greg@xiph.org> wrote:
> On Wed, May 3, 2017 at 9:08 PM, Erik Aronesty via bitcoin-dev
> <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
> > CONS:
>
> The primary result would be paying people to sybil attack the network.
> It's far cheaper to run one node behind thousands of IPs than it is to
> run many nodes.
>
> Suggestions like this have come up many times before.
>
--001a1141039a848fa0054eb28f78
Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
<div dir=3D"ltr"><div><div>> Greg<br></div><div>> The primary result =
would be paying people to sybil attack the network.<br><br>I cannot imagine=
the benefit to replicating an ip address in this case, except maybe you th=
ink that you would be more likely to be selected as a peer?=C2=A0=C2=A0 But=
there would be no actual advantage since download peers are selected based=
on throughput and actual blocks served.<br><br>Also, since this makes the =
network far more resistant to DDOS attacks, it has added benefits.<br><br><=
/div><div>> Luke:<br></div>> paying for services is in general a grea=
t idea, but one that Bitcoin<br>> can much better serve once Lightning i=
s in production.<br><br>I agree, if lightning networks were baked in, then =
the tips could be as granular as "per block downloaded", or even =
(outlandish seeming now, but maybe not in a future where there is a "p=
ublic rpc api") "per rpc call".=C2=A0=C2=A0 Miners and busin=
ess users would certainly pay for high quality services.=C2=A0=C2=A0 Spinni=
ng up new nodes without a tip and relying on the "free network" w=
ould probably take more time, for example.<br><br></div><div>I suspect that=
if income were even a small possibility the number of full nodes would vas=
tly increase.<br><br></div><div>Sybil attacks seem irrelevant as long as re=
asonable QOS metrics are stored per peer.<br></div><div><br></div></div><di=
v class=3D"gmail_extra"><br><div class=3D"gmail_quote">On Wed, May 3, 2017 =
at 5:53 PM, Gregory Maxwell <span dir=3D"ltr"><<a href=3D"mailto:greg@xi=
ph.org" target=3D"_blank">greg@xiph.org</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquot=
e class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc sol=
id;padding-left:1ex">On Wed, May 3, 2017 at 9:08 PM, Erik Aronesty via bitc=
oin-dev<br>
<<a href=3D"mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org">bitcoin-dev@li=
sts.<wbr>linuxfoundation.org</a>> wrote:<br>
> CONS:<br>
<br>
The primary result would be paying people to sybil attack the network.<br>
It's far cheaper to run one node behind thousands of IPs than it is to<=
br>
run many nodes.<br>
<br>
Suggestions like this have come up many times before.<br>
</blockquote></div><br></div>
--001a1141039a848fa0054eb28f78--
|
