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
|
Received: from sog-mx-1.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.191]
helo=mx.sourceforge.net)
by sfs-ml-1.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76)
(envelope-from <voisine@gmail.com>) id 1XXL12-0001XA-3S
for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Fri, 26 Sep 2014 02:12:12 +0000
Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-1.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of gmail.com
designates 74.125.82.177 as permitted sender)
client-ip=74.125.82.177; envelope-from=voisine@gmail.com;
helo=mail-we0-f177.google.com;
Received: from mail-we0-f177.google.com ([74.125.82.177])
by sog-mx-1.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128)
(Exim 4.76) id 1XXL11-0005Ka-36
for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Fri, 26 Sep 2014 02:12:12 +0000
Received: by mail-we0-f177.google.com with SMTP id t60so8767917wes.8
for <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>;
Thu, 25 Sep 2014 19:12:04 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.180.73.209 with SMTP id n17mr23950523wiv.34.1411697524865;
Thu, 25 Sep 2014 19:12:04 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.27.85.163 with HTTP; Thu, 25 Sep 2014 19:12:04 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <1447373.AzvO89eGJS@crushinator>
References: <CACq0ZD4Ki=7Tba_2UhmuH-dPCbOnfXrJRcLPc+fP6Uur4FpG_A@mail.gmail.com>
<1447373.AzvO89eGJS@crushinator>
Date: Thu, 25 Sep 2014 19:12:04 -0700
Message-ID: <CACq0ZD55G7sAXuu-UxoVJuuk1rwxKKwAPg4qkRoTreD1X2fc9Q@mail.gmail.com>
From: Aaron Voisine <voisine@gmail.com>
To: Matt Whitlock <bip@mattwhitlock.name>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
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
(voisine[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: 1XXL11-0005Ka-36
Cc: Bitcoin Development <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>
Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] SPV clients and relaying double spends
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: Fri, 26 Sep 2014 02:12:12 -0000
Something like that would be a great help for SPV clients that can't
detect double spends on their own. (still limited of course to sybil
attack concerns)
Aaron Voisine
breadwallet.com
On Thu, Sep 25, 2014 at 7:07 PM, Matt Whitlock <bip@mattwhitlock.name> wrot=
e:
> What's to stop an attacker from broadcasting millions of spends of the sa=
me output(s) and overwhelming nodes with slower connections? Might it be a =
better strategy not to relay the actual transactions (after the first) but =
rather only propagate (once) some kind of double-spend alert?
>
>
> On Thursday, 25 September 2014, at 7:02 pm, Aaron Voisine wrote:
>> There was some discussion of having nodes relay double-spends in order
>> to alert the network about double spend attempts.
>>
>> A lot more users will be using SPV wallets in the future, and one of
>> the techniques SPV clients use to judge how likely a transaction is to
>> be confirmed is if it propagates across the network. I wonder if and
>> when double-spend relaying is introduced, if nodes should also send
>> BIP61 reject messages or something along those lines to indicate which
>> transactions those nodes believe to be invalid, but are relaying
>> anyway.
>>
>> This would be subject to sybil attacks, as is monitoring propagation,
>> however it does still increase the cost of performing a 0 confirmation
>> double spend attack on an SPV client above just relaying double-spends
>> without indicating if a node believes the transaction to be valid.
>>
>> Aaron Voisine
>> breadwallet.com
>
|
