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
|
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 <mh.in.england@gmail.com>) id 1TRkn5-0000es-Lj
for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Fri, 26 Oct 2012 14:21:39 +0000
Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-1.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of gmail.com
designates 209.85.212.175 as permitted sender)
client-ip=209.85.212.175; envelope-from=mh.in.england@gmail.com;
helo=mail-wi0-f175.google.com;
Received: from mail-wi0-f175.google.com ([209.85.212.175])
by sog-mx-1.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128)
(Exim 4.76) id 1TRkn4-0007EZ-VS
for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Fri, 26 Oct 2012 14:21:39 +0000
Received: by mail-wi0-f175.google.com with SMTP id hq4so380929wib.10
for <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>;
Fri, 26 Oct 2012 07:21:32 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.216.201.156 with SMTP id b28mr13909091weo.4.1351261292804;
Fri, 26 Oct 2012 07:21:32 -0700 (PDT)
Sender: mh.in.england@gmail.com
Received: by 10.216.236.30 with HTTP; Fri, 26 Oct 2012 07:21:32 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <CAAS2fgSPk8QgYq2zcV+G2GoQyo5AfnRj4=+sURr34KZakhqazQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CANEZrP0XALwBFJyZTzYd5xBp4MRrjv0s_y2tOXbO7UgjWF2HzA@mail.gmail.com>
<CAAS2fgScydOWz_eqnhWxQNVUOtzvSBwkj7tttP3_DLdW+=3CTQ@mail.gmail.com>
<CANEZrP2sBZL=UYAxtjU2Su13Z12wB7s04LxmcyUR2hH51tcN9g@mail.gmail.com>
<CAAS2fgSPk8QgYq2zcV+G2GoQyo5AfnRj4=+sURr34KZakhqazQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 26 Oct 2012 16:21:32 +0200
X-Google-Sender-Auth: 32qRHUrXx-x-qnemW0_SU5I4vaM
Message-ID: <CANEZrP0=+L8HC4uVuwe5qc5CirUAUPWz18d08AebPcLpkv7Z8g@mail.gmail.com>
From: Mike Hearn <mike@plan99.net>
To: Gregory Maxwell <gmaxwell@gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
X-Spam-Score: -1.5 (-)
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
(mh.in.england[at]gmail.com)
-0.0 SPF_PASS SPF: sender matches SPF record
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
0.0 AWL AWL: From: address is in the auto white-list
X-Headers-End: 1TRkn4-0007EZ-VS
Cc: Bitcoin Dev <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>
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: <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, 26 Oct 2012 14:21:39 -0000
> 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.
And this gets you what?
Users who have active wallets will have their bandwidth wasted for as
long as you keep up the attack. Once you stop active wallets won't be
rescanning that part of the chain and new users won't be scanning it
either, as they skip blocks before their earliest key time using
getheaders. So basically you can waste the bandwidth of active users
for a while, by spamming transactions. This is not a new attack.
Anyway, it's trivial to DoS the entire Bitcoin network today. It
hasn't ever happened. Maybe one day it will, but the only rationale
people can come up with for such an attack beyond random griefing is
governments, and complexity attacks are really not their style. Much
easier to just pass a law.
I'm not saying DoS should be ignored, but I do feel there are limits
to how far down that rabbithole it's worth going.
|
