From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org [172.17.192.35]) by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D56CDBB6 for ; Tue, 30 Jun 2015 01:00:24 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from mail-pa0-f41.google.com (mail-pa0-f41.google.com [209.85.220.41]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8EB6CE7 for ; Tue, 30 Jun 2015 01:00:24 +0000 (UTC) Received: by paceq1 with SMTP id eq1so112789031pac.3 for ; Mon, 29 Jun 2015 18:00:24 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to :cc:subject:references:in-reply-to:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; bh=gJ5qeC2G1Oybu6aJLxIyDi6BupG7WEVJq480zdApO6Y=; b=fXHRwWdLGGa3bOWX1DBbcv9LF+k1nL/j4uGCqKNunEzu9xxAWbvAgqDkC3X9TNWWro TTiBDhPHDgZQFXMIPixFoACJdIine86DeK6WfpmSylQrcab6jXBO7+KhOgA7UOGS454J lTa1+LARe/0AYCT75gc29DeNtnXkg/nnmHJCyVl2qCkg4hYzBmQ5kNqYSRQSSb3e0EkO eRRajt2xOItVt4jEdunmNo/vzU/BxUjBNaVJFobKDHJ/a9O8Iw6frhQNeoojlz9fabFM YyWC6819HOCiZnumSDqUb7Nq/PT8Q9APuafW3gR7iVOo/OxzuDlubyhqpUUZoAKkOAKz 3HIQ== X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQlD/4SXR4eRIgpe6brQGAdH0brXEPyQ9mRioFMIoM5U+x02VUIJvNg6jIZqyh3m5TeUtKTl X-Received: by 10.69.0.8 with SMTP id au8mr37697907pbd.112.1435626024348; Mon, 29 Jun 2015 18:00:24 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [10.100.1.239] ([204.58.254.99]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id oe10sm4248421pdb.19.2015.06.29.18.00.22 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Mon, 29 Jun 2015 18:00:23 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <5591EA1B.1050709@thinlink.com> Date: Mon, 29 Jun 2015 18:00:11 -0700 From: Tom Harding User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.7.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Natanael References: <20150629050726.GA502@savin.petertodd.org> <5591E10F.9000008@thinlink.com> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.8 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW, RCVD_IN_SORBS_WEB autolearn=ham version=3.3.1 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on smtp1.linux-foundation.org Cc: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] BIP: Full Replace-by-Fee deployment schedule X-BeenThere: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Bitcoin Development Discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 30 Jun 2015 01:00:24 -0000 On 6/29/2015 5:51 PM, Natanael wrote: > What you ask to see implemented will trivially fall to a sybil attack. > It isn't securable. It is running on the honor system exclusively. It > will be attacked, it will fail, losses will be had, the attackers will > walk away with embarrassingly large sums. Oh please. Checking that a node does relay something is not much different than banning it for relaying garbage. It just happens to require that you have two nodes and coordinate them somehow. I didn't offer a complete design, don't claim magical properties, and certainly didn't mean to imply that nodes passing a test could be trusted (as you suggest with your "accountable parties").