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
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
|
Return-Path: <odinn.cyberguerrilla@riseup.net>
Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org
[172.17.192.35])
by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 13CF8ACC
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Thu, 16 Jul 2015 05:18:28 +0000 (UTC)
X-Greylist: domain auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6
Received: from mx1.riseup.net (mx1.riseup.net [198.252.153.129])
by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6A0CC63
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Thu, 16 Jul 2015 05:18:27 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from berryeater.riseup.net (berryeater-pn.riseup.net [10.0.1.120])
(using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits))
(Client CN "*.riseup.net",
Issuer "COMODO RSA Domain Validation Secure Server CA" (verified OK))
by mx1.riseup.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0AD1940B6F;
Thu, 16 Jul 2015 05:18:27 +0000 (UTC)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=riseup.net; s=squak;
t=1437023907; bh=QF9j6JHhiAC9BWp5/an/bYpQB3qjRkqrKgXAak+DeXE=;
h=Date:From:To:Subject:References:In-Reply-To:From;
b=GiGcDEn3EulGQhu9iwD242JrKJ+chbbzbOLAbBKSRVg8cgWTTD6HgAoh9IRJviQzQ
aOYlZ10/2XyRvhRIUlqw+qEygpYSXXQ5SZJjiLL5UaUUIrqn4ZQBB31ZXu7IsPVYbV
Yza+gbKPonTqnVhYiYNJqhuVc45ZjHi7c5zXq1Ms=
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1])
(Authenticated sender: odinn.cyberguerrilla)
with ESMTPSA id A343E40E16
Message-ID: <55A73EA1.6080500@riseup.net>
Date: Wed, 15 Jul 2015 22:18:25 -0700
From: odinn <odinn.cyberguerrilla@riseup.net>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64;
rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.7.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Matthieu Riou <matthieu@blockcypher.com>,
bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
References: <24662b038abc45da7f3990e12a649b8a@airmail.cc> <55A66FA9.4010506@thinlink.com> <20150715151825.GB20029@savin.petertodd.org> <CDB5FC27-F3F0-44F7-BBC6-670ACAE740D2@gmail.com> <20150715155903.GC20029@savin.petertodd.org> <55A68668.6@bitcoins.info> <CAHUNwMp3-jNc9g0shCUCR76WEA5Qp+JpxZGPmAuK5wuy4p1yEw@mail.gmail.com> <20150715193259.GC3064@muck>
<CAHUNwMowbrua=iY518SL4MBY1sszfQwoM3epCaZ-jVrb2qxghg@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAHUNwMowbrua=iY518SL4MBY1sszfQwoM3epCaZ-jVrb2qxghg@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Virus-Scanned: clamav-milter 0.98.7 at mx1
X-Virus-Status: Clean
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.0 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED,
DKIM_VALID, DKIM_VALID_AU, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW, RP_MATCHES_RCVD,
UNPARSEABLE_RELAY 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] Significant losses by double-spending unconfirmed
transactions
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: Thu, 16 Jul 2015 05:18:28 -0000
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Personally, I hope more people develop on-chain microtransaction
systems (so long as open source, etc) ~ see
http://dev.blockcypher.com/#microtransaction-api ~ and I hope the
bitcoin community figures out ways to re-examine dust, rather than
viewing it as a "problem," but instead, to re-examine this and
interpret it as an "opportunity" for microgiving. (I won't claim there
aren't challenges there, but I'll just throw that out there again..)
- - Please see, my little project, http://abis.io
On 07/15/2015 05:08 PM, Matthieu Riou via bitcoin-dev wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 15, 2015 at 12:32 PM, Peter Todd <pete@petertodd.org
> <mailto:pete@petertodd.org>> wrote:
>
>
> "In a Sybil attack the attacker subverts the reputation system of
> a peer-to-peer network by creating a large number of pseudonymous
> identities, using them to gain a disproportionately large
> influence."
>
>
> Our "identities" aren't pseudonymous.
>
> In the case of Bitcoin, there's something like 6,000 nodes, so if
> that 20% is achived via outgoing connections you'd have 600 to 1200
> active outgoing connections using up network resources. Meanwhile,
> the default is 8 outgoing connections - you're using about two
> orders of magnitude more resources.
>
>
> You're not talking about a Sybil attack anymore, just resource use.
> We do know how to change default configurations to offer more
> connections.
>
> If you are achieving that via incoming connections, you're placing
> a big part of the relay network under central control. As we've
> seen in the case of Chainalysis's sybil attack, even unintentional
> confirguation screwups can cause serious and widespread issues due
> to the large number of nodes that can fail in one go. (note how
> Chainalysis's actions were described(1) as a sybil attack by
> multiple Bitcoin devs, including Gregory Maxwell, Wladimir van der
> Laan, and myself)
>
>
> We're not Chainanalysis and we do not run hundreds of distinct
> nodes. Just a few well-tuned ones.
>
>
> What you are doing is inherently incompatible with
> decentralization.
>
>
> That's a matter of opinion. One could argue your actions and
> control attempts hurt decentralization. Either way, no one should
> play the decentralization police or act as a gatekeeper.
>
> Question: Do you have relationships with mining pools? For
> instance, are you looking at contracts to have transactions mined
> to guarantee confirmations?
>
>
> No, we do not. We do not know anyone else having such contracts. As
> you know, Coinbase also denied having such contracts in place [1].
> But you seem to have more relationships with mining pools than we
> do.
>
> Thanks, Matthieu CTO and Founder, BlockCypher
>
> [1]
> http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2015-June/00886
4.html
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________ bitcoin-dev mailing
> list bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
>
- --
http://abis.io ~
"a protocol concept to enable decentralization
and expansion of a giving economy, and a new social good"
https://keybase.io/odinn
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1
iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJVpz6hAAoJEGxwq/inSG8CdAMIAJfJcJaXyFjUVLi6iA03tpot
8e0SONC+kadLRTUn8GzAlpSgvKLcfqO5WvNKsjJenckrP+B6oSlT2e2u0QGehxl4
gGfTksOPzrBFCfWOZnVAaDr4uR7OAHM/AjXkpn1gQJsh+xBhyeUF1xapPeR/M+9e
yXFtV0itZve93sKrtlo+J/VShEi9mPBYrFrJBK9o17ir5chXW/xzqGm1Ny3fS72U
/g9zkdt+LBidaLXdPvfBjjmux18BM+IAifO41C9Q0eIN6x0zajvPd/Y3Mm5J/QUe
p8qvj2Px75AYSCV0qzgMhETZdwYFor04f2zJ8u3WUB+AbupM9hewqvfPGiUi1qU=
=S/aI
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
|
