1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
|
Received: from sog-mx-2.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.192]
helo=mx.sourceforge.net)
by sfs-ml-1.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76)
(envelope-from <joel.kaartinen@gmail.com>) id 1QpJ64-00077h-99
for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Fri, 05 Aug 2011 12:01:48 +0000
Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-2.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of gmail.com
designates 209.85.215.47 as permitted sender)
client-ip=209.85.215.47; envelope-from=joel.kaartinen@gmail.com;
helo=mail-ew0-f47.google.com;
Received: from mail-ew0-f47.google.com ([209.85.215.47])
by sog-mx-2.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128)
(Exim 4.76) id 1QpJ63-0004zG-KL
for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Fri, 05 Aug 2011 12:01:48 +0000
Received: by ewy5 with SMTP id 5so2058101ewy.34
for <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>;
Fri, 05 Aug 2011 05:01:41 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.204.128.150 with SMTP id k22mr657522bks.94.1312545701282;
Fri, 05 Aug 2011 05:01:41 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [91.153.53.68] (a91-153-53-68.elisa-laajakaista.fi
[91.153.53.68])
by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id t19sm838910bku.40.2011.08.05.05.01.39
(version=SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Fri, 05 Aug 2011 05:01:39 -0700 (PDT)
From: Joel Joonatan Kaartinen <joel.kaartinen@gmail.com>
To: Jeff Garzik <jgarzik@exmulti.com>
In-Reply-To: <CA+8xBpd0ud0Jn7Xxfw3C-WCH12WuB7k_W5x00Mj2EidemGoYpQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAJNQ0svWgFwZrra0gQFpxNLOPXk4RbKygeMUNPEA=k-Wqwa-ZA@mail.gmail.com>
<201108041038.47396.luke@dashjr.org>
<CABsx9T2tAeOp6RAb+Zb5zmzdSePZV90Uu=r4mzFc44d6ndbcnQ@mail.gmail.com>
<CAJNQ0stRrv4Yqf9ENszoXJE8+FpzwXZaGVDP=stZi27x4BRmmg@mail.gmail.com>
<CA+8xBpd0ud0Jn7Xxfw3C-WCH12WuB7k_W5x00Mj2EidemGoYpQ@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Date: Fri, 05 Aug 2011 15:01:37 +0300
Message-ID: <1312545697.19584.56.camel@mei>
Mime-Version: 1.0
X-Mailer: Evolution 2.30.3
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Spam-Score: -1.6 (-)
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
(joel.kaartinen[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
X-Headers-End: 1QpJ63-0004zG-KL
Cc: bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net
Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] Blitcoin? (Black Hat 2011)
X-BeenThere: bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: <bitcoin-development.lists.sourceforge.net>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development>,
<mailto:bitcoin-development-request@lists.sourceforge.net?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://sourceforge.net/mailarchive/forum.php?forum_name=bitcoin-development>
List-Post: <mailto:bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>
List-Help: <mailto:bitcoin-development-request@lists.sourceforge.net?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development>,
<mailto:bitcoin-development-request@lists.sourceforge.net?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 05 Aug 2011 12:01:48 -0000
On Fri, 2011-08-05 at 01:52 -0400, Jeff Garzik wrote:
> Yes, that is correct. Bitcoin resends wallet transactions with zero
> confirmations, and both sent and received transactions fall within the
> "wallet tx" superset.
>
> TBH I had forgotten about the resend on the receiver side, though.
> It, of course, makes plenty of sense in the context of importing
> transactions from foreign sources, e.g. receiving transactions via a
> USB flash drive.
Could every node do the resends? Alternatively, could we implement a TOR
like tunneling system just for the first leg of the transactions
(overkill?). Then again, maybe just a TOR gateway if that's desired.
> > Drawok's suggestion about using UDP packets with spoofed sender addresses is
> > interesting, as UDP has another advantage; you can open up an "inbound" UDP
> > port on almost any NAT router without any UPNP magic: just send out an UDP
> > packet, the router will wait a certain time for answers (on a mapped port
> > number) and relay these back.
This is a nice idea but sounds rather unreliable.
> Well, it -is- possible to implement TCP over UDP <grin> The TCP
> connection sequence over UDP helps to work against spoofing, while UDP
> helps to open an inbound UDP port as you describe.
There's already an implementation of this, called UTP. If we do decide
that using UDP is worthwhile, this library is probably better than
implementing something ourselves.
- Joel
|
