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
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
|
Return-Path: <ctpacia@gmail.com>
Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org
[172.17.192.35])
by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 71CF2FF
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Mon, 17 Aug 2015 21:44:57 +0000 (UTC)
X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6
Received: from mail-io0-f170.google.com (mail-io0-f170.google.com
[209.85.223.170])
by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id DC47817F
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Mon, 17 Aug 2015 21:44:56 +0000 (UTC)
Received: by iodt126 with SMTP id t126so168246085iod.2
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Mon, 17 Aug 2015 14:44:56 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113;
h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to
:cc:content-type;
bh=hezaFLE8BTDE0rc8KVpbSHb2UbuFpXl6Gi3jo/D4dyU=;
b=QwTf/cgaHalrK/T5P9j7yIyvnitv4px34oca42S8LpZ55ULSgzQir8hOyGutZFT2ew
Ht31OJwzCvCFHxDikECGs0RMdwmE6gLg7GwLmIiqgYIKj7R3AFT9R8XRhqdTxiHVp4s5
CBAf0FVJRG2gGCEMqClbj5MwjzFwjZi0fNBZsu9BRzKKWSlWs0RarvNqOwtjoRO2dDSl
tbJkwOKfr4qvPoQO69oziIsi48z/wqh+1aii2A2+Kpw+LVpki6Z6nlusfYEnFMHZUjvC
2ezQqfmq3L7IcU0bVePUCCqciCei5ph1bHBx0zcCUSaFXMimzeVvLrpBsz1wjnbNsQ+C
rYfQ==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.107.137.208 with SMTP id t77mr3441505ioi.2.1439847896410;
Mon, 17 Aug 2015 14:44:56 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.36.144.196 with HTTP; Mon, 17 Aug 2015 14:44:56 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.36.144.196 with HTTP; Mon, 17 Aug 2015 14:44:56 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <20150817212912.GA15817@muck>
References: <6EC9DDF352DC4838AE9B088AB372428A25E1F42A@DS04>
<20150817212912.GA15817@muck>
Date: Mon, 17 Aug 2015 17:44:56 -0400
Message-ID: <CAB+qUq79BgiTGFS1yLxxogg8907jCUtNDmBhnikLWc1fqofNyg@mail.gmail.com>
From: Chris Pacia <ctpacia@gmail.com>
To: Peter Todd <pete@petertodd.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a113ed538657335051d88b699
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.7 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED,
DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,FREEMAIL_FROM,HTML_MESSAGE,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
Cc: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Incentives to run full nodes
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: Mon, 17 Aug 2015 21:44:57 -0000
--001a113ed538657335051d88b699
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
On Aug 17, 2015 5:29 PM, "Peter Todd via bitcoin-dev" <
bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
From the point of view of a
> wallet, it's not very secure to use Hearn-style SPV mode, and volunteers
> running full nodes doesn't help things. Sybil attacking the IP address
> space is pretty easy in comparison to aquiring hashing power sufficient
> to create false confirmations, so any attacker able to do the former
> will likely be running the full node you're connecting too anyway.
> Ultimately, Hearn-style SPV is a close approximation to just trusting
> anyone with a non-trivial amount of hashing power. (and getting that is
> surprisingly easy, e.g. w/ SPV mining)
Can you explain how the spv node fails against an attacker with a
non-trivial amount of hash power where a full node doesn't? To attack an
spv wallet that is waiting for 6 or 10 confirmations, you would not only
need to Sybil them but also summon a massive amount of hashing power to
create a chain of headers (while forgoing the opportunity to mine valid
blocks with that hash power).
But could someone with that much hash power not Sybil a full node and give
them a chain for valid blocks (but on an orphan fork)? The failure model
doesn't seem specific to spv to me.
--001a113ed538657335051d88b699
Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
<p dir=3D"ltr"><br>
On Aug 17, 2015 5:29 PM, "Peter Todd via bitcoin-dev" <<a href=
=3D"mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org">bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfo=
undation.org</a>> wrote:<br>
From the point of view of a<br>
> wallet, it's not very secure to use Hearn-style SPV mode, and volu=
nteers<br>
> running full nodes doesn't help things. Sybil attacking the IP add=
ress<br>
> space is pretty easy in comparison to aquiring hashing power sufficien=
t<br>
> to create false confirmations, so any attacker able to do the former<b=
r>
> will likely be running the full node you're connecting too anyway.=
<br>
> Ultimately, Hearn-style SPV is a close approximation to just trusting<=
br>
> anyone with a non-trivial amount of hashing power. (and getting that i=
s<br>
> surprisingly easy, e.g. w/ SPV mining)</p>
<p dir=3D"ltr">Can you explain how the spv node fails against an attacker w=
ith a non-trivial amount of hash power where a full node doesn't? To at=
tack an spv wallet that is waiting for 6 or 10 confirmations, you would not=
only need to Sybil them but also summon a massive amount of hashing power =
to create a chain of headers (while forgoing the opportunity to mine valid =
blocks with that hash power). </p>
<p dir=3D"ltr">But could someone with that much hash power not Sybil a full=
node and give them a chain for valid blocks (but on an orphan fork)? The f=
ailure model doesn't seem specific to spv to me. </p>
--001a113ed538657335051d88b699--
|
