Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 9.0 \(3067\))
From: Me <jimmyjack@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <20150715155903.GC20029@savin.petertodd.org>
Date: Wed, 15 Jul 2015 09:06:48 -0700
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <E724A120-7F85-488B-81CD-B1CD8EB227E3@gmail.com>
References: <24662b038abc45da7f3990e12a649b8a@airmail.cc>
	<55A66FA9.4010506@thinlink.com>
	<20150715151825.GB20029@savin.petertodd.org>
	<CDB5FC27-F3F0-44F7-BBC6-670ACAE740D2@gmail.com>
	<20150715155903.GC20029@savin.petertodd.org>
To: Peter Todd <pete@petertodd.org>
Cc: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Significant losses by double-spending unconfirmed
	transactions
Precedence: list

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 <pete@petertodd.org> 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