Received: from sog-mx-1.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.191] helo=mx.sourceforge.net) by sfs-ml-2.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76) (envelope-from ) id 1WIHIx-0004Bs-UJ for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Tue, 25 Feb 2014 12:40:11 +0000 Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-1.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of riseup.net designates 198.252.153.129 as permitted sender) client-ip=198.252.153.129; envelope-from=odinn.cyberguerrilla@riseup.net; helo=mx1.riseup.net; Received: from mx1.riseup.net ([198.252.153.129]) by sog-mx-1.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.76) id 1WIHIw-0002uu-5L for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Tue, 25 Feb 2014 12:40:11 +0000 Received: from fulvetta.riseup.net (fulvetta-pn.riseup.net [10.0.1.75]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (Client CN "*.riseup.net", Issuer "Gandi Standard SSL CA" (not verified)) by mx1.riseup.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 21B3050DC8 for ; Tue, 25 Feb 2014 04:40:04 -0800 (PST) Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) (Authenticated sender: odinn.cyberguerrilla@fulvetta.riseup.net) with ESMTPSA id B7802231 Received: from localhost (127.0.0.1) (SquirrelMail authenticated user odinn.cyberguerrilla) by fulvetta.riseup.net with HTTP; Tue, 25 Feb 2014 04:40:03 -0800 Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <20140225044116.GA28050@savin> References: <20140225044116.GA28050@savin> Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2014 04:40:03 -0800 From: "Odinn Cyberguerrilla" To: bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net User-Agent: SquirrelMail/1.4.21 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain;charset=utf-8 X-Priority: 3 (Normal) Importance: Normal X-Virus-Scanned: clamav-milter 0.97.8 at mx1 X-Virus-Status: Clean Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Spam-Score: -1.5 (-) X-Spam-Report: Spam Filtering performed by mx.sourceforge.net. See http://spamassassin.org/tag/ for more details. -0.0 RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE RBL: Sender listed at http://www.dnswl.org/, no trust [198.252.153.129 listed in list.dnswl.org] -1.5 SPF_CHECK_PASS SPF reports sender host as permitted sender for sender-domain -0.0 SPF_HELO_PASS SPF: HELO matches SPF record -0.0 SPF_PASS SPF: sender matches SPF record -0.0 RP_MATCHES_RCVD Envelope sender domain matches handover relay domain 0.0 UNPARSEABLE_RELAY Informational: message has unparseable relay lines X-Headers-End: 1WIHIw-0002uu-5L Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] Fee drop X-BeenThere: bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2014 12:40:12 -0000 > So, just to be clear, we're adding, say, a memory limited mempool or > something prior to release so this fee drop doesn't open up an obvious > low-risk DDoS exploit.... right? As we all know, the network bandwidth > DoS attack mitigation strategy relies on transactions we accept to > mempools getting mined, and the clearance rate of the new low-fee > transactions is going to be pretty small; we've already had problems in > the past with mempool growth in periods of high demand. Equally it > should be obvious to people how you can create large groups of low-fee > transactions, and then cheaply double-spend them with higher fee > transactions to suck up network bandwidth - just like I raised for the > equally foolish double-spend propagation pull-req. It's good that the core devs keep doing good work on these topics, thanks= . > > Of course, there's also the problem that we're basically lying to peopl= e > about whether or not Bitcoin is a good medium for microtransactions. I don't hear anyone lying. > It's not. Actually, it is, and comparatively speaking, Bitcoin is better than the most common alternatives in use by people around the world. There are obvious issues (dust, how to handle fee issues moving forward, one could blather on forever about that), but again, I think core devs have done fairly well and will probably continue to do so along with many others.=20 That's just my own 0.00004 BTC though (my way of saying, at time of posting this, "my own 2 cents"). >Saying otherwise by releasing software that has known and > obvious DoS attack vulnerabilities that didn't exist in the previous > version is irresponsible on multiple levels. That was not very specific. Could you be more specific? > > -- > 'peter'[:-1]@petertodd.org > 0000000000000000b28e2818c4d8019fb71e33ec2d223f5e09394a89caccf4e2 > -----------------------------------------------------------------------= ------- > Flow-based real-time traffic analytics software. Cisco certified tool. > Monitor traffic, SLAs, QoS, Medianet, WAAS etc. with NetFlow Analyzer > Customize your own dashboards, set traffic alerts and generate reports. > Network behavioral analysis & security monitoring. All-in-one tool. > http://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/clk?id=3D126839071&iu=3D/4140/os= tg.clktrk_______________________________________________ > Bitcoin-development mailing list > Bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development >