Return-Path: Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org [172.17.192.35]) by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D7877BE7 for ; Wed, 15 Jul 2015 16:12:32 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from mail.help.org (mail.help.org [70.90.2.18]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5450A126 for ; Wed, 15 Jul 2015 16:12:32 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [10.1.10.25] (B [10.1.10.25]) by mail.help.org with ESMTPA ; Wed, 15 Jul 2015 12:12:29 -0400 References: <24662b038abc45da7f3990e12a649b8a@airmail.cc> <55A66FA9.4010506@thinlink.com> <20150715151825.GB20029@savin.petertodd.org> <20150715155903.GC20029@savin.petertodd.org> To: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org From: Milly Bitcoin Message-ID: <55A68668.6@bitcoins.info> Date: Wed, 15 Jul 2015 12:12:24 -0400 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.3; WOW64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.1.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20150715155903.GC20029@savin.petertodd.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.0 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_40 autolearn=ham version=3.3.1 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on smtp1.linux-foundation.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 16:12:32 -0000 Below are 2 examples why a systematic risk analysis needs to be used. The current situation is that you have developers making hyperbolic, demonizing statements that users are "spammers" and engaged in Sybil "attacks." Characterizing these activities as spam and Sybil attacks is not a systematic analysis, it is closer to the process used at the Salem Witch trials. If this process of demonetization is to take its natural course then these statements are "developer attacks" from a developer system that lacks proper incentives and is rife with conflicts of interest. Russ >... 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. ... > Spammers out there are being very disrepectful of my fullnode resources