Received: from sog-mx-1.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.191] helo=mx.sourceforge.net) by sfs-ml-4.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76) (envelope-from ) id 1TRkik-00058G-Gf for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Fri, 26 Oct 2012 14:17:10 +0000 Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-1.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of gmail.com designates 209.85.223.175 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.85.223.175; envelope-from=gmaxwell@gmail.com; helo=mail-ie0-f175.google.com; Received: from mail-ie0-f175.google.com ([209.85.223.175]) by sog-mx-1.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128) (Exim 4.76) id 1TRkij-0006hj-Qd for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Fri, 26 Oct 2012 14:17:10 +0000 Received: by mail-ie0-f175.google.com with SMTP id c13so4112762ieb.34 for ; Fri, 26 Oct 2012 07:17:04 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.43.7.132 with SMTP id oo4mr19655066icb.6.1351261024572; Fri, 26 Oct 2012 07:17:04 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.64.171.73 with HTTP; Fri, 26 Oct 2012 07:17:04 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: Date: Fri, 26 Oct 2012 10:17:04 -0400 Message-ID: From: Gregory Maxwell To: Mike Hearn Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 X-Spam-Score: -1.4 (-) X-Spam-Report: Spam Filtering performed by mx.sourceforge.net. See http://spamassassin.org/tag/ for more details. -1.5 SPF_CHECK_PASS SPF reports sender host as permitted sender for sender-domain 0.0 FREEMAIL_FROM Sender email is commonly abused enduser mail provider (gmaxwell[at]gmail.com) -0.0 SPF_PASS SPF: sender matches SPF record -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 0.2 AWL AWL: From: address is in the auto white-list X-Headers-End: 1TRkij-0006hj-Qd Cc: Bitcoin Dev Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] Draft BIP for Bloom filtering 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: Fri, 26 Oct 2012 14:17:10 -0000 On Fri, Oct 26, 2012 at 10:01 AM, Mike Hearn wrote: > If you just want to waste bandwidth of nodes you can connect to nodes > and repeatedly download blocks, or fill the network with fake nodes > that spam random generated transactions to whoever connects. I don't > see how to avoid that so it seems odd to worry about a much more > complicated attack. Because I can potentially waste bandwidth of all nodes forever (well as long as users are still scanning blocks with my transactions in them) with O(1) work. Though I'm not sure how much of a threat is vs just paying 1e-8 btc to lots of addresses which would only be less bad by some constant factor as worse. I guess I should try to attack it and see how bad the pollution I can construct should be. (offline, of course)