From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 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 ) id 1VBEMt-0003BR-Nc for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Mon, 19 Aug 2013 01:34:51 +0000 Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-4.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of petertodd.org designates 62.13.149.77 as permitted sender) client-ip=62.13.149.77; envelope-from=pete@petertodd.org; helo=outmail149077.authsmtp.com; Received: from outmail149077.authsmtp.com ([62.13.149.77]) by sog-mx-4.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76) id 1VBEMs-0002fg-G7 for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Mon, 19 Aug 2013 01:34:51 +0000 Received: from mail-c235.authsmtp.com (mail-c235.authsmtp.com [62.13.128.235]) by punt7.authsmtp.com (8.14.2/8.14.2/Kp) with ESMTP id r7J1YhQh082159; Mon, 19 Aug 2013 02:34:43 +0100 (BST) Received: from savin (76-10-178-109.dsl.teksavvy.com [76.10.178.109]) (authenticated bits=128) by mail.authsmtp.com (8.14.2/8.14.2/) with ESMTP id r7J1YcTL059828 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO); Mon, 19 Aug 2013 02:34:40 +0100 (BST) Date: Sun, 18 Aug 2013 21:34:37 -0400 From: Peter Todd To: Gavin Andresen Message-ID: <20130819013437.GA21524@savin> References: <20130819001357.GA4281@savin> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha256; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="GvXjxJ+pjyke8COw" Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) X-Server-Quench: 852e41b1-086f-11e3-b5c5-002590a15da7 X-AuthReport-Spam: If SPAM / abuse - report it at: http://www.authsmtp.com/abuse X-AuthRoute: OCd2Yg0TA1ZNQRgX IjsJECJaVQIpKltL GxAVKBZePFsRUQkR aAdMdwsUGUATAgsB AmUbW1ZeU1l7XWE7 bAxPbAVDY01GQQRq WVdMSlVNFUsqBmYA b016Lhl3fg1EcDBx ZU5nXz5TWUYvcUcv Q1NUHWtQeGZhPWMC AkULch5UcAFPdx8U a1UrBXRDAzANdhES HhM4ODE3eDlSNilR RRkIIFQOdA4hGjk7 QlgDGn0mAVEMTCZ7 IhIoJ1UAHVgcNEgp KjMA X-Authentic-SMTP: 61633532353630.1023:706 X-AuthFastPath: 0 (Was 255) X-AuthSMTP-Origin: 76.10.178.109/587 X-AuthVirus-Status: No virus detected - but ensure you scan with your own anti-virus system. X-Spam-Score: -1.5 (-) 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 SPF_PASS SPF: sender matches SPF record X-Headers-End: 1VBEMs-0002fg-G7 Cc: Bitcoin Dev Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] Bloom io attack effectiveness X-BeenThere: bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 19 Aug 2013 01:34:51 -0000 --GvXjxJ+pjyke8COw Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Mon, Aug 19, 2013 at 10:59:18AM +1000, Gavin Andresen wrote: > Peter said: > "In any case given that SPV peers don't contribute back to the network > they should obviously be heavily deprioritized and served only with > whatever resources a node has spare." >=20 > This seems very much like a "cut off your nose to spite your face" soluti= on. >=20 > SPV peers are INCREDIBLY IMPORTANT to the growth of Bitcoin; much more > important than nodes that have the bandwidth and disk I/O capability of > being a full node. Bitcoin will be just fine if there are never more than > 10,000 big, beefy, full nodes forming the backbone of the network, but wi= ll > be NOTHING if we don't support tens of millions of lightweight SPV device= s. >=20 > Ok, that's an exaggeration, Bitcoin would be just fine in an Electrum mod= el > where tens of millions of lightweight devices rely 100% on a full node to > operate. But I would prefer the more decentralized, less-trust-required S= PV > model. Don't read too much into what I said; under normal circumstances when a Bitcoin node isn't being attacked, there will be plenty of spare capacity for SPV nodes. All I'm suggesting is that we make sure serving those nodes doesn't come at the expense of maintaining consensus - mainly distributing new blocks around the network so the blockchain keeps moving forward. (something many SPV peers can help with anyway) I'd much rather my Android wallet take a long time to sync up, than blocks get re-organized because miners found themselves separated from one another, let along someone clever using that to do double-spend attacks during those re-orgs. After all, I can always find a private node to connect to that won't be overloaded because it doesn't accept connections from anonymous users. It's also easy to just use really basic measures to limit abuse, like "sign up with your bitcointalk" account, or "pay 10 cents for an account to discourage spammers" Anyway all things less likely to be needed if attackers know all they are going to manage to do is inconvenience people temporarily because the network itself will keep running. --=20 'peter'[:-1]@petertodd.org --GvXjxJ+pjyke8COw Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" Content-Description: Digital signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux) iQEcBAEBCAAGBQJSEXYtAAoJECSBQD2l8JH7lzcIALAY0o1yZ4JZcj/JmbaODrsW 96b4NGYv/4cMltqhPijuKn23MIvuG7JjaNu9f4J6Bmt5jOSnIyVPz5XZzsjWD3EW IFFGZ3GYg5C5Dwp7Yf4l40WCGkm+gQWO2Vs+RF/inpdorYNuOkMoMhUk52ki5Qu0 r0XO29sLEH8LtQNCEem6OfzVadSnCdEQysOI4UIJmQQfclPjrqpFcthqAczgJCrp dEq48M1ZuBtBuMSWFHx2HEAPaJEdp0ut9+1jhod+PtYb6HcHgmPQ3U00j9ymcUgX yn3xTA7Wfz+5NMAs/jybLC4Sz/PivZNCCh7jx1DUObsXYe/3mZ+KOBSxhK3ywgc= =R7RY -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --GvXjxJ+pjyke8COw--