From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 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 E93AE1DBD for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>; Sun, 4 Oct 2015 06:59:36 +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 532D0AF for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>; Sun, 4 Oct 2015 06:59:36 +0000 (UTC) Received: from cotinga.riseup.net (unknown [10.0.1.161]) (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 D259FC20D0; Sat, 3 Oct 2015 23:59:35 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=riseup.net; s=squak; t=1443941976; bh=M8YcjGoj6L03qn0FS4pXvKJaHk/VBr/+EFh9XuUBnGU=; h=Date:From:To:CC:Subject:References:In-Reply-To:From; b=gz4dbU3S4rJZW7XDFrx+LuICS+3kfPX45Wgzyoz+0RV4c0/Wxf9Wkm8QKbwCFb0EZ x+C6s9lQl4wqd02tS1mema6EtNMPiv3UHq94d/hFOLbIDY87Z6BFp4rX76AtUh4z+s TFPlqaENJCGSihvqy0pGfqLVRB1yLr4TwO3MaYrw= Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) (Authenticated sender: odinn.cyberguerrilla) with ESMTPSA id D76811C0362 Message-ID: <5610CE4F.1000800@riseup.net> Date: Sun, 04 Oct 2015 06:59:27 +0000 From: odinn <odinn.cyberguerrilla@riseup.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Chris Pacia <ctpacia@gmail.com>, Peter Todd <pete@petertodd.org>, justusranvier@riseup.net, gmaxwell@gmail.com, gmaxwell@gmail.com References: <6EC9DDF352DC4838AE9B088AB372428A25E1F42A@DS04> <20150817212912.GA15817@muck> <CAB+qUq79BgiTGFS1yLxxogg8907jCUtNDmBhnikLWc1fqofNyg@mail.gmail.com> <55D4124B.6070700@riseup.net> <5610CB2F.90002@riseup.net> In-Reply-To: <5610CB2F.90002@riseup.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Virus-Scanned: clamav-milter 0.98.7 at mx1.riseup.net X-Virus-Status: Clean X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.7 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW,T_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 Cc: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Incentives to run full nodes 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: Sun, 04 Oct 2015 06:59:37 -0000 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA512 (Note: Due to being very tired I have issued a correction to my post below so as to make sure I have not been misunderstood.) odinn via bitcoin-dev: > Hello, > > Some background on this.... > > > A very long while ago I posted to the bitcoin-development mailing > list some ABIS concepts having to do with microdonations: > > https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2013-December/ 00 > > 3791.html > https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2014-January/0 04 > > 049.html > > And an interesting post (which led me to explore BCN) via nullc: > https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7765455 (posted 1 & 1/3 year > ago). (I realize the way I wrote the above paragraph made it sound like I posted the above post at https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7765455 but I just want to point out here that I did not; I meant to say that I read an interesting post which led me to explore BCN that was published by nullc.) > > > Anyway, some long while ago this discussion came up about > "Incentives to run full nodes," and the last post in the thread was > here: > > https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2014-June/0060 83 > > .html > > Since that time, some new developments have come to light which > the participants in that thread may find interesting; > > Please see in part, > > https://bytecoin.org/news/bytecoin-wallet-1.0.8-release-introduces-mic ro > > - -donations/ > > This presents a working implementation in BCN; the concept as > implemented there is arguably viable in BTC as well. > > Please explore, play with, discuss, etc. > > Cheers, > > - O > > odinn: >> Potentially relevant... > >> "Incentivizing the running of full nodes" > >> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2014-June/006 0 > >> 28 > > > .html > >> (However, the issue to which I referred here is now closed) > >> View whole thread: > >> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2014-June/thr e > >> ad > > > .html#6028 > >> On 08/17/2015 02:44 PM, Chris Pacia via bitcoin-dev wrote: > >>> On Aug 17, 2015 5:29 PM, "Peter Todd via bitcoin-dev" >>> <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org >>> <mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>> wrote: From the >>> point of view of a >>>> wallet, it's not very secure to use Hearn-style SPV mode, and >>>> volunteers running full nodes doesn't help things. Sybil >>>> attacking the IP address space is pretty easy in comparison >>>> to aquiring hashing power sufficient to create false >>>> confirmations, so any attacker able to do the former will >>>> likely be running the full node you're connecting too >>>> anyway. Ultimately, Hearn-style SPV is a close approximation >>>> to just trusting anyone with a non-trivial amount of hashing >>>> power. (and getting that is surprisingly easy, e.g. w/ SPV >>>> mining) > >>> Can you explain how the spv node fails against an attacker with >>> a non-trivial amount of hash power where a full node doesn't? >>> To attack an spv wallet that is waiting for 6 or 10 >>> confirmations, you would not only need to Sybil them but also >>> summon a massive amount of hashing power to create a chain of >>> headers (while forgoing the opportunity to mine valid blocks >>> with that hash power). > >>> But could someone with that much hash power not Sybil a full >>> node and give them a chain for valid blocks (but on an orphan >>> fork)? The failure model doesn't seem specific to spv to me. > > > >>> _______________________________________________ bitcoin-dev >>> mailing list bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org >>> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev > > > > > _______________________________________________ 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----- iQEcBAEBCgAGBQJWEM5PAAoJEGxwq/inSG8C48UH/A9mfVaP2h1nOD2po2yaDCLA xJuMIhrgo81q+WAbwFk4ac3bu3R/RzLLM7yA2IWDiPJrt6gCvEgIjzsHcG7+q5Bd s7dPEFnibPzpqXjnVh6FcfpuW/MCT3AXiSvnsKiLh99v+oz9g50fIpOMYuOTk/Sy 816xqKbDfKEHzkWzeOv5gV61AzNS7PDWjfRqRV/Om5+J/MZt/kgXJ8UqEVmYbLXM wIOWA1Vl4BZtQBiQpyDBjBUDhU0YboVXOMIbmx+ffDXKydcErLwFOCBp3XjVOMti y0B56kmPko5xKH4/n53WFLH32ILd7dZNtK4KzhmyPjeJ+yXdfFTmR3Ayo4wvP2s= =UvrH -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----