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
|
Received: from sog-mx-4.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.194]
helo=mx.sourceforge.net)
by sfs-ml-4.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76)
(envelope-from <gmaxwell@gmail.com>) id 1UZQ6o-0006Al-GR
for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Mon, 06 May 2013 18:25:58 +0000
Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-4.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of gmail.com
designates 209.85.215.41 as permitted sender)
client-ip=209.85.215.41; envelope-from=gmaxwell@gmail.com;
helo=mail-la0-f41.google.com;
Received: from mail-la0-f41.google.com ([209.85.215.41])
by sog-mx-4.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128)
(Exim 4.76) id 1UZQ6n-00068j-MB
for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Mon, 06 May 2013 18:25:58 +0000
Received: by mail-la0-f41.google.com with SMTP id fn20so3598275lab.14
for <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>;
Mon, 06 May 2013 11:25:51 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.152.37.196 with SMTP id a4mr8471007lak.55.1367864750929;
Mon, 06 May 2013 11:25:50 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.112.35.43 with HTTP; Mon, 6 May 2013 11:25:50 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <20130506180418.GA3797@netbook.cypherspace.org>
References: <CANEZrP1YFCLmasOrdxdKDP1=x8nKuy06kGRqZwpnmnhe3-AroA@mail.gmail.com>
<20130506161216.GA5193@petertodd.org>
<CA+8xBpfdY7GsQiyrHuOG-MqXon0RGShpg2Yv-KeAXQ-503kAsA@mail.gmail.com>
<20130506163732.GB5193@petertodd.org>
<CANEZrP2WqXZVRJp6ag=RC4mSkt+a6qTYYpvE=DW_0Rdr=_BBHA@mail.gmail.com>
<20130506180418.GA3797@netbook.cypherspace.org>
Date: Mon, 6 May 2013 11:25:50 -0700
Message-ID: <CAAS2fgSh+dYxSak8HvE0Sr4=zxzRc=3dMQ6X_nD_a+OdacUBZQ@mail.gmail.com>
From: Gregory Maxwell <gmaxwell@gmail.com>
To: Adam Back <adam@cypherspace.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
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
(gmaxwell[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
0.0 LOTS_OF_MONEY Huge... sums of money
X-Headers-End: 1UZQ6n-00068j-MB
Cc: Bitcoin Dev <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>
Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] Discovery/addr packets (was: Service bits
for pruned nodes)
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: Mon, 06 May 2013 18:25:59 -0000
On Mon, May 6, 2013 at 11:04 AM, Adam Back <adam@cypherspace.org> wrote:
> bitcoins primary
> vulnerability IMO (so far) is network attacks to induce network splits,
> local lower difficulty to a point that a local and artificially isolated
> area of the network can be fooled into accepting an orphan branch as the
> one-true block chain,
Uh. It currently costs about 2016*25*$120 =3D six million dollars to
reduce the difficulty in your isolated fork by a factor of 4.
To reduce it by a factor of 1000 (what would be required to make a
parallel fork that you could maintain in realtime with a single avalon
device) the cost is sum(2016*25/4^n*120,n,0,ceil(log4(1000))) or
about eight million dollars.
Surely you can think of attacks on Bitcoin which are less expensive
than eight million dollars. :P
> maybe even from node first install time.
Protecting against that=E2=80=94 making sure any such attack has to start f=
rom
a high difficulty=E2=80=94 is, in my opinion, the biggest continued
justification for checkpoints.
> (btw I notice most of the binaries and tar balls are not signed, nor serv=
ed
> from SSL - at least for linux).
They are signed.
> With ToR, it has a similar bootstrap problem to bitcoin. So while that m=
ay
> help it is also passing the buck, not necessarily solving the problem. A=
nd
No, it doesn't. It has centrally controlled directories that publish
an official Truth of the Network. Someone can isolate you and thus DOS
you, but they can't put you on a fantasy tor network. But ...
centeralized.
> as I said I think its possible bitcoin has a higher assurance need in tha=
t
> the attackers motivated my $$ might put more effort in than the odd
It does, and we also consider decentralization a core value. But even
the tor project would like to decentralize more.
|
