From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from sog-mx-2.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.192] helo=mx.sourceforge.net) by sfs-ml-4.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76) (envelope-from ) id 1YEgNy-0001Kb-Le for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Fri, 23 Jan 2015 15:43:02 +0000 Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-2.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of gmail.com designates 209.85.216.174 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.85.216.174; envelope-from=etotheipi@gmail.com; helo=mail-qc0-f174.google.com; Received: from mail-qc0-f174.google.com ([209.85.216.174]) by sog-mx-2.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128) (Exim 4.76) id 1YEgNx-0000rD-M7 for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Fri, 23 Jan 2015 15:43:02 +0000 Received: by mail-qc0-f174.google.com with SMTP id s11so6849711qcv.5 for ; Fri, 23 Jan 2015 07:42:56 -0800 (PST) X-Received: by 10.224.4.74 with SMTP id 10mr10432404qaq.37.1422027776070; Fri, 23 Jan 2015 07:42:56 -0800 (PST) Received: from [192.168.1.28] (c-69-143-204-74.hsd1.md.comcast.net. [69.143.204.74]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id h6sm1746692qgh.32.2015.01.23.07.42.55 for (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Fri, 23 Jan 2015 07:42:55 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <54C26BFE.1080103@gmail.com> Date: Fri, 23 Jan 2015 10:42:54 -0500 From: Alan Reiner User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux i686 on x86_64; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.3.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net References: <78662993-6C67-4480-8062-55CC9FA63908@bitsofproof.com> In-Reply-To: <78662993-6C67-4480-8062-55CC9FA63908@bitsofproof.com> Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------050708060006090709090707" X-Spam-Score: -0.6 (/) 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 (etotheipi[at]gmail.com) -0.0 SPF_PASS SPF: sender matches SPF record 1.0 HTML_MESSAGE BODY: HTML included in message -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: 1YEgNx-0000rD-M7 Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] SIGHASH_WITHINPUTVALUE 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: Fri, 23 Jan 2015 15:43:02 -0000 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --------------050708060006090709090707 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Unfortunately, one major attack vector is someone isolating your node, getting you to sign away your whole wallet to fee, and then selling it to a mining pool to mine it before you can figure why your transactions aren't making it to the network. In such an attack, the relay rules aren't relevant, and if the attacker can DoS you for 24 hours, it doesn't take a ton of mining power to make the attack extremely likely to succeed. On 01/23/2015 10:31 AM, Tamas Blummer wrote: > Not a fix, but would reduce the financial risk, if nodes were not > relaying excessive fee transactions. > > Tamas Blummer > > --------------050708060006090709090707 Content-Type: text/html; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Unfortunately, one major attack vector is someone isolating your node, getting you to sign away your whole wallet to fee, and then selling it to a mining pool to mine it before you can figure why your transactions aren't making it to the network.  In such an attack, the relay rules aren't relevant, and if the attacker can DoS you for 24 hours, it doesn't take a ton of mining power to make the attack extremely likely to succeed.




On 01/23/2015 10:31 AM, Tamas Blummer wrote:
Not a fix, but would reduce the financial risk, if nodes were not relaying excessive fee transactions.

Tamas Blummer



--------------050708060006090709090707--