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
|
Received: from sog-mx-4.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.194]
helo=mx.sourceforge.net)
by sfs-ml-2.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76)
(envelope-from <btcdrak@gmail.com>) id 1Z25DH-0002wj-BO
for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Mon, 08 Jun 2015 22:08:11 +0000
Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-4.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of gmail.com
designates 74.125.82.49 as permitted sender)
client-ip=74.125.82.49; envelope-from=btcdrak@gmail.com;
helo=mail-wg0-f49.google.com;
Received: from mail-wg0-f49.google.com ([74.125.82.49])
by sog-mx-4.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128)
(Exim 4.76) id 1Z25DG-00084J-L0
for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Mon, 08 Jun 2015 22:08:11 +0000
Received: by wgbgq6 with SMTP id gq6so426213wgb.3
for <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>;
Mon, 08 Jun 2015 15:08:04 -0700 (PDT)
X-Received: by 10.194.238.193 with SMTP id vm1mr36195595wjc.57.1433801284559;
Mon, 08 Jun 2015 15:08:04 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.27.136.196 with HTTP; Mon, 8 Jun 2015 15:07:44 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <COL131-DS52C1B18F4EFC4D7D7EEA1CDBF0@phx.gbl>
References: <5574E39C.3090904@thinlink.com>
<COL131-DS25374BEFA76744E26EB8CBCDBF0@phx.gbl>
<AD4A025F-D782-4094-9CBC-EBEF0DD04838@newcastle.ac.uk>
<COL131-DS2729F02884BC43E54C8D63CDBF0@phx.gbl>
<7E7DF414-6DDB-48A6-9199-D6883209B67D@newcastle.ac.uk>
<COL131-DS61BB9B5776DE65077ED0ACDBF0@phx.gbl>
<20150608214443.GC19826@muck>
<COL131-DS52C1B18F4EFC4D7D7EEA1CDBF0@phx.gbl>
From: Btc Drak <btcdrak@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 8 Jun 2015 23:07:44 +0100
Message-ID: <CADJgMztM1X4qudWocf5eYQ2fALHoWVu33gOkfQ-Co6NzWq8OGw@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Raystonn ." <raystonn@hotmail.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=089e01493cec3ea984051808e059
X-Spam-Score: 1.0 (+)
X-Spam-Report: Spam Filtering performed by mx.sourceforge.net.
See http://spamassassin.org/tag/ for more details.
1.0 HK_RANDOM_FROM From username looks random
-1.5 SPF_CHECK_PASS SPF reports sender host as permitted sender for
sender-domain
0.6 HK_RANDOM_ENVFROM Envelope sender username looks random
0.0 FREEMAIL_FROM Sender email is commonly abused enduser mail provider
(btcdrak[at]gmail.com)
-0.0 SPF_PASS SPF: sender matches SPF record
1.0 HTML_MESSAGE BODY: HTML included in message
-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: 1Z25DG-00084J-L0
Cc: Bitcoin Dev <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>,
"Patrick Mccorry \(PGR\)" <patrick.mccorry@newcastle.ac.uk>
Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] New attack identified and potential
solution described: Dropped-transaction spam attack against the blocksize
limit
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: Mon, 08 Jun 2015 22:08:11 -0000
--089e01493cec3ea984051808e059
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
On Mon, Jun 8, 2015 at 11:01 PM, Raystonn . <raystonn@hotmail.com> wrote:
> No, with no blocksize limit, a spammer would would flood the network with
> transactions until they ran out of money.
I think you are forgetting even if you remove the blocksize limit, there is
still a hard message size limit imposed by the p2p protocol. Block would
de-facto be limited to this size.
--089e01493cec3ea984051808e059
Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
<div dir=3D"ltr"><div class=3D"gmail_extra"><div class=3D"gmail_quote">On M=
on, Jun 8, 2015 at 11:01 PM, Raystonn . <span dir=3D"ltr"><<a href=3D"ma=
ilto:raystonn@hotmail.com" target=3D"_blank">raystonn@hotmail.com</a>></=
span> wrote:<br><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8e=
x;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">No, with no blocksize limit,=
a spammer would would flood the network with<br>
transactions until they ran out of money.</blockquote><div><br></div><div>I=
think you are forgetting even if you remove the blocksize limit, there is =
still a hard message size limit imposed by the p2p protocol. Block would de=
-facto be limited to this size.</div></div></div></div>
--089e01493cec3ea984051808e059--
|
