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 85C4F308 for ; Sat, 25 Jul 2015 02:23:03 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from mail-wi0-f174.google.com (mail-wi0-f174.google.com [209.85.212.174]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 15CE710A for ; Sat, 25 Jul 2015 02:23:02 +0000 (UTC) Received: by wibud3 with SMTP id ud3so52696931wib.0 for ; Fri, 24 Jul 2015 19:23:00 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:sender:date:message-id:subject:from:to:content-type; bh=1oXCRZrCm3OabgxavwdMKCQ43aQq8IijrmVK5beWZ80=; b=at0GNG9g+nFSPeXEgHZfdcLsKDSuZ7KJ8iyQGf/QxJ9wFm8/6y26jF5ovqIaK8Cdan YGYw0/SgWA7TeWndaLUi+G8dW2h0ubB+qWvfDOyFgime2c67/md9t8nCahp1JwVuM1Xr 9k1bfJnqPogQzmRQXqun5lxTtr5UFbDuALPbYLqL7cGAVMxPGEwRp8S8lNzHIC4MKRxH cMJ2Vrigwhr2ZyqE2vd8bdxDNEwSwzuVxTKrf3qhntqW4yBMZsPmfgrPmNr7QmVa0/k0 En/a0JaWNpRnza0ZxgcT/Tsv8eWl+t2M8Z4Kg4MpD3pY34VnCt4+5ryC9m1mcoaXXaml jsLQ== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.180.96.230 with SMTP id dv6mr2350264wib.23.1437790980739; Fri, 24 Jul 2015 19:23:00 -0700 (PDT) Sender: dscotese@gmail.com Received: by 10.27.184.134 with HTTP; Fri, 24 Jul 2015 19:23:00 -0700 (PDT) Date: Fri, 24 Jul 2015 19:23:00 -0700 X-Google-Sender-Auth: lMwIqSWlgetdc332HdUlbFvd1RU Message-ID: From: Dave Scotese To: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=f46d04374917ab1957051ba9cc0c X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,FREEMAIL_FROM,HTML_MESSAGE,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW 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] Bitcoin Roadmap 2015, or "If We Do Nothing" Analysis 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: Sat, 25 Jul 2015 02:23:03 -0000 --f46d04374917ab1957051ba9cc0c Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Incentivize investigations for public consumption. The people on this list are the ones who probably care the most. When I looked up that IP address, the Whois info names "OVH" and "Octave Klaba" (who founded OVH, according to Wikipedia) as the owner. " blockchain.info" appears in the HTML header as retrieved by the "Anti-Hacker Alliance" ( http://anti-hacker-alliance.com/index.php?details=3D37.187.136.15). Blockchain.info itself returns IP addresses managed by CloudFlare whenever I try it. On Fri, Jul 24, 2015 at 2:12 PM, Slurms MacKenzie via bitcoin-dev < bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote: > They do not run anything but BitcoinJ (evidenced by them blindly followin= g > invalid chains), so no proper consensus checking going on here at all. > Connected to my nodes is a bad peer (doesn=E2=80=99t relay inventory but = downloads > everything) from 37.187.136.15, with the user agent > /BitcoinJ:0.12SNAPHOT/Satoshi:0.2.0/ which is owned by blockchain.info. > You can also submit an invalid transaction through their /pushtx interfac= e > and get a mixture of noise and BitcoinJ error messages out of it as well. > > If even the people who have to their claim hundreds of thousands of > wallets are relying on their security don=E2=80=99t bother running even a= single > node to sanity check against, who are we really going to expect people to > in the future if the load goes 8x, 16x, 32x higher? Like CoinBase and > others, these are the companies which are claimed will be the ones > supporting the network with ludicrous sized blocks because they have a > financial incentive to. > > Well, they don't even do it now when it could be achieved with a $5 VPS. > > > > Sent: Friday, July 24, 2015 at 8:43 PM > > From: "Peter Todd via bitcoin-dev" < > bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> > > To: "Thomas Zander" > > Cc: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org > > Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Bitcoin Roadmap 2015, or "If We Do Nothing" > Analysis > > We can test the fact that blockchain.info's wallet and block explorer > > has behaved in a way consistent with not running a full node - they hav= e > > shown invalid data that any full node would reject on multiple > > occasions, most recently invalid confirmations during the BIP66 fork. > _______________________________________________ > bitcoin-dev mailing list > bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org > https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev > --f46d04374917ab1957051ba9cc0c Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Incentivize investigations for public consumption.=C2=A0 T= he people on this list are the ones who probably care the most.

When= I looked up that IP address, the Whois info names "OVH" and &quo= t;Octave Klaba" (who founded OVH, according to Wikipedia) as the owner= .=C2=A0 "blockchain.info" = appears in the HTML header as retrieved by the "Anti-Hacker Alliance&q= uot; (http://anti-hacker-alliance.com/index.php?details=3D37.187.136.15<= /a>).=C2=A0 Blockchain.info itself returns IP addresses managed by CloudFla= re whenever I try it.

On Fri, Jul 24, 2015 at 2:12 PM, Slurms MacKenzie via bitcoin-= dev <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
They do not= run anything but BitcoinJ (evidenced by them blindly following invalid cha= ins), so no proper consensus checking going on here at all. Connected to my= nodes is a bad peer (doesn=E2=80=99t relay inventory but downloads everyth= ing) from 37.187.136.15, with the user agent /BitcoinJ:0.12SNAPHOT/Satoshi:= 0.2.0/ which is owned by blockchain.info. You can also submit an invalid t= ransaction through their /pushtx interface and get a mixture of noise and B= itcoinJ error messages out of it as well.

If even the people who have to their claim hundreds of thousands of wallets= are relying on their security don=E2=80=99t bother running even a single n= ode to sanity check against, who are we really going to expect people to in= the future if the load goes 8x, 16x, 32x higher? Like CoinBase and others,= these are the companies which are claimed will be the ones supporting the = network with ludicrous sized blocks because they have a financial incentive= to.

Well, they don't even do it now when it could be achieved with a $5 VPS= .


> Sent: Friday, July 24, 2015 at 8:43 PM
> From: "Peter Todd via bitcoin-dev" <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
> To: "Thomas Zander" <thomas@thomaszander.se>
> Cc: bitcoin-d= ev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
> Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Bitcoin Roadmap 2015, or "If We Do Not= hing" Analysis
> We can test the fact that blockchain.info's wallet and block expl= orer
> has behaved in a way consistent with not running a = full node - they have
> shown invalid data that any full node would reject on multiple
> occasions, most recently invalid confirmations during the BIP66 fork.<= br>
__________________________________= _____________
bitcoin-dev mailing list
bitcoin-dev@lists.= linuxfoundation.org
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mail= man/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
--f46d04374917ab1957051ba9cc0c--