From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <tomz@freedommail.ch>
Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org
	[172.17.192.35])
	by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 15ED8AB9
	for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
	Thu,  4 May 2017 14:58:05 +0000 (UTC)
X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6
Received: from mx-out01.mykolab.com (mx.kolabnow.com [95.128.36.1])
	by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E555413E
	for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
	Thu,  4 May 2017 14:58:03 +0000 (UTC)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at kolabnow.com
X-Spam-Score: -2.9
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW
	autolearn=ham version=3.3.1
Received: from mx03.mykolab.com (mx03.mykolab.com [10.20.7.101])
	by mx-out01.mykolab.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B005E62228
	for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
	Thu,  4 May 2017 16:58:00 +0200 (CEST)
From: Tom Zander <tomz@freedommail.ch>
To: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org,
	Erik Aronesty via bitcoin-dev <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
Date: Thu, 04 May 2017 16:57:59 +0200
Message-ID: <67911104.PTmAhAhWMc@strawberry>
In-Reply-To: <CAJowKgKpiqeHAFn+tbZAqH9Oojhm8K+8EcJz9kMoU+qgK0PBHA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAJowKg+snAUjbCFkTybNqiJCy=d_M3s5k376y1B=rVqD8WCOXA@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAAS2fgQYhi3oqncrNU+26E4JoHHfQMJAyTGtJY-ZD6J9O7NPsQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAJowKgKpiqeHAFn+tbZAqH9Oojhm8K+8EcJz9kMoU+qgK0PBHA@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on
	smtp1.linux-foundation.org
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Thu, 04 May 2017 14:58:48 +0000
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Full node "tip" function
X-BeenThere: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Bitcoin Protocol 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: Thu, 04 May 2017 14:58:05 -0000

I agree with you here, Erik. Greg's standard answer doesn=E2=80=99t apply t=
o your=20
suggestion.
I think he was a bit too trigger happy because we have seen a lot of simila=
r=20
suggestions that have the Sybill issue he mentioned.


On Thursday, 4 May 2017 15:15:02 CEST Erik Aronesty via bitcoin-dev wrote:
> > Greg
> > The primary result would be paying people to sybil attack the network.
>=20
> I cannot imagine the benefit to replicating an ip address in this case,
> except maybe you think that you would be more likely to be selected as a
> peer?   But there would be no actual advantage since download peers are
> selected based on throughput and actual blocks served.

=2D-=20
Tom Zander
Blog: https://zander.github.io
Vlog: https://vimeo.com/channels/tomscryptochannel