Return-Path: Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org [172.17.192.35]) by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0F596BCB for ; 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 ; Wed, 15 Jul 2015 16:06:53 +0000 (UTC) Received: by wgkl9 with SMTP id l9so37508080wgk.1 for ; 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 In-Reply-To: <20150715155903.GC20029@savin.petertodd.org> Date: Wed, 15 Jul 2015 09:06:48 -0700 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: References: <24662b038abc45da7f3990e12a649b8a@airmail.cc> <55A66FA9.4010506@thinlink.com> <20150715151825.GB20029@savin.petertodd.org> <20150715155903.GC20029@savin.petertodd.org> To: Peter Todd 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 List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-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 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