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
|
Return-Path: <tomh@thinlink.com>
Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org
[172.17.192.35])
by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id DF07DBD6
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Fri, 10 Jul 2015 01:57:29 +0000 (UTC)
X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6
Received: from mail-pd0-f172.google.com (mail-pd0-f172.google.com
[209.85.192.172])
by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 64721174
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Fri, 10 Jul 2015 01:57:29 +0000 (UTC)
Received: by pdrg1 with SMTP id g1so43118965pdr.2
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Thu, 09 Jul 2015 18:57:29 -0700 (PDT)
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
d=1e100.net; s=20130820;
h=x-gm-message-state:message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to
:subject:references:in-reply-to:content-type
:content-transfer-encoding;
bh=wIK2QtyVIvMN07/7vxqMf0jwhaWMjUWbFDGW2LzDLdY=;
b=iVhp5nzP3kbkJDtdBEpcq7qHJA+ko7EEIOZrek/GKfIT6wTwnPgSidJf5FUkY3tCZw
anYi9SyUdMrTquJnp2a0J3bELF/R5D4jaSB/rf7UGFQPIiLj5Cz6dWY9V7O+t1hKjxyb
r1l6xd9RhT7OebVHaHPXx+nVycHY2uFsLskzF4JCNflujhGDtdQFzVKkSZyJZfevLO0+
aZgZw5oXh0g8B0jnvTax717BEx7JtxTXLjoMNiryNjcXuJgTZIYs0kgfBNw1qxJDaK6J
EYNqLCrQhszA6ZUCv54e6Pcs9XDLWWs2rLJMg+6XZ/5KsGsR/f1rLfa2/cJJh97otKTj
VlsA==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQmHowXem29SJ+7Zyt2JFRcdm2iYUBML3GGcKSF2Njf+PAy7xFrbIO5vISuZYJq4/sGn/tz3
X-Received: by 10.68.133.131 with SMTP id pc3mr36662155pbb.107.1436493448989;
Thu, 09 Jul 2015 18:57:28 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [192.168.1.89] (99-8-65-117.lightspeed.davlca.sbcglobal.net.
[99.8.65.117]) by smtp.googlemail.com with ESMTPSA id
nt6sm7132908pbc.18.2015.07.09.18.57.27
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
(version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128);
Thu, 09 Jul 2015 18:57:27 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <559F2687.9080003@thinlink.com>
Date: Thu, 09 Jul 2015 18:57:27 -0700
From: Tom Harding <tomh@thinlink.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.3; WOW64;
rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.7.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
References: <1828256.77UID9hUjK@crushinator>
In-Reply-To: <1828256.77UID9hUjK@crushinator>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW
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] Can we penalize peers who relay rejected
replacement txs?
X-BeenThere: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Bitcoin Development Discussion <bitcoin-dev.lists.linuxfoundation.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/options/bitcoin-dev>,
<mailto:bitcoin-dev-request@lists.linuxfoundation.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/>
List-Post: <mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
List-Help: <mailto:bitcoin-dev-request@lists.linuxfoundation.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev>,
<mailto:bitcoin-dev-request@lists.linuxfoundation.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 10 Jul 2015 01:57:30 -0000
Replace-by-anything can only work if conflicts are relayed, so the
solution is not to act against the peer.
Alex Morcos offered a suggestion on IRC -- track recently-rejected
txid's and don't getdata them. The idea sounds good to me.
On 7/9/2015 4:55 PM, Matt Whitlock wrote:
> I'm presently running my full node with Peter Todd's full replace-by-fee patch set [1]. I am seeing a LOT of messages in the log about replacement transactions being rejected due to their paying less in fees than the transactions they would replace. I understand that this could happen legitimately from time to time, due to my node's receiving a replacing transaction prior to receiving the replaced transaction; however, due to the ongoing spam attack, I am seeing a steady stream of these rejection messages, dozens per second at times. I am wondering if each replacement rejection ought to penalize the peer who relayed the offending transaction, and if the penalty builds up enough, then the peer could be temporarily banned, similar to how other "misbehaving" peers are treated.
>
> [1] https://github.com/petertodd/bitcoin/commits/replace-by-fee-v0.10.2
> _______________________________________________
> bitcoin-dev mailing list
> bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
|
