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
|
Received: from sog-mx-4.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.194]
helo=mx.sourceforge.net)
by sfs-ml-1.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76)
(envelope-from <voisine@gmail.com>) id 1XXKrK-00019H-Nq
for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Fri, 26 Sep 2014 02:02:10 +0000
Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-4.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of gmail.com
designates 74.125.82.46 as permitted sender)
client-ip=74.125.82.46; envelope-from=voisine@gmail.com;
helo=mail-wg0-f46.google.com;
Received: from mail-wg0-f46.google.com ([74.125.82.46])
by sog-mx-4.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128)
(Exim 4.76) id 1XXKrJ-0004Pt-R9
for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Fri, 26 Sep 2014 02:02:10 +0000
Received: by mail-wg0-f46.google.com with SMTP id a1so8430046wgh.5
for <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>;
Thu, 25 Sep 2014 19:02:03 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.180.184.20 with SMTP id eq20mr42641118wic.61.1411696923610;
Thu, 25 Sep 2014 19:02:03 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.27.85.163 with HTTP; Thu, 25 Sep 2014 19:02:03 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Thu, 25 Sep 2014 19:02:03 -0700
Message-ID: <CACq0ZD4Ki=7Tba_2UhmuH-dPCbOnfXrJRcLPc+fP6Uur4FpG_A@mail.gmail.com>
From: Aaron Voisine <voisine@gmail.com>
To: Bitcoin Development <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
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
(voisine[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: 1XXKrJ-0004Pt-R9
Subject: [Bitcoin-development] SPV clients and relaying double spends
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 Sep 2014 02:02:11 -0000
There was some discussion of having nodes relay double-spends in order
to alert the network about double spend attempts.
A lot more users will be using SPV wallets in the future, and one of
the techniques SPV clients use to judge how likely a transaction is to
be confirmed is if it propagates across the network. I wonder if and
when double-spend relaying is introduced, if nodes should also send
BIP61 reject messages or something along those lines to indicate which
transactions those nodes believe to be invalid, but are relaying
anyway.
This would be subject to sybil attacks, as is monitoring propagation,
however it does still increase the cost of performing a 0 confirmation
double spend attack on an SPV client above just relaying double-spends
without indicating if a node believes the transaction to be valid.
Aaron Voisine
breadwallet.com
|
