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 13CF8ACC for ; 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 ; 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 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 , bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org References: <24662b038abc45da7f3990e12a649b8a@airmail.cc> <55A66FA9.4010506@thinlink.com> <20150715151825.GB20029@savin.petertodd.org> <20150715155903.GC20029@savin.petertodd.org> <55A68668.6@bitcoins.info> <20150715193259.GC3064@muck> In-Reply-To: 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 List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-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 > 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-----