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 563A1892 for ; Wed, 31 Aug 2016 19:49:02 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from mail-qt0-f178.google.com (mail-qt0-f178.google.com [209.85.216.178]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id DEA91286 for ; Wed, 31 Aug 2016 19:49:01 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-qt0-f178.google.com with SMTP id 52so31069391qtq.3 for ; Wed, 31 Aug 2016 12:49:01 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=QlA2W/hzyd2yOS5xT+l4O4R3fS9ve9a2bDRSnpln4Wg=; b=vfckuRkJcxRH7aDQuXqC4Kece1T2hkzwnbJFJFuX672IgfU/t94CFWpJXx4pwqU1Kf gjOmwDlIuTBrKY+BYt5JHXUvMllSp6tXIOnQAiTkepQQaNjVgE76vRBZwOrB6XxW/xCS oCJYbYjLU/PpVqDpJ8BYczzuKfK3A/IACKvMm3UbllWZdN5fhcbx4AzTVAF4ieybDgcg rzS/lKWio+u0IIoE5F1AVSZjH79/vi2mfT3LOqDoUY44fpbQBM/yRk0pjudoGV61JKn+ gWYaPuDDVzcb5z2hn8GMSjzrCXHFb1ftnDUl2m5qYBOj4Fw5+JG5e3VlB72JqLaVdJfH Vuww== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=QlA2W/hzyd2yOS5xT+l4O4R3fS9ve9a2bDRSnpln4Wg=; b=RTddD01kx7y72PhCvLUO5WUgtFHJLh7HifR0ZSe5gJlyCUij6LfaEE9a82VcPh1MFA apVqMO1gGX5ueiAZc9WzcoDqNDOIaIignl87hZ1CMPAtFiueNoGG+gQfXY3kvBBi/Ly6 +0fzgph37gQ9lp4MvaIQaW5OwodLf4q9bbn9vQEx6WzgUdRwMRk8cMGOxjfTLSip+ZY4 FWmbW6W9UTgoX9nnrA95KZhAFcOWVV+Z2/eYmsat5KqV6fNHYmKNG7Hhf/7mauziCd3H xgcsm7xuTAYY0p0XeAd9MLeN4UjIEszioEm+ixCsmtv9e0/fFiSOy1EYRVw8LGLJpZB+ OfiQ== X-Gm-Message-State: AE9vXwOoCMcyyOpUr5rnWipp2+vI9SvzJm1Zh9ZCZ34EWljtSLpvxUdWLpTeTEvR7APGlQujANC4o8vzMDOUEA== X-Received: by 10.237.37.99 with SMTP id w32mr6988008qtc.59.1472672941125; Wed, 31 Aug 2016 12:49:01 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <20160824014634.GA19905@fedora-21-dvm> <82507740-C4A3-4AF2-BA02-3B29E5FECDE4@petertodd.org> In-Reply-To: <82507740-C4A3-4AF2-BA02-3B29E5FECDE4@petertodd.org> From: James MacWhyte Date: Wed, 31 Aug 2016 19:48:50 +0000 Message-ID: To: Peter Todd , Bitcoin Protocol Discussion Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a11420f8286b462053b63630e X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.7 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,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 Cc: Jeff Coleman Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Capital Efficient Honeypots w/ "Scorched Earth" Doublespending Protection X-BeenThere: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Bitcoin Protocol Discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 31 Aug 2016 19:49:02 -0000 --001a11420f8286b462053b63630e Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 > > >I've always assumed honeypots were meant to look like regular, yet > >poorly-secured, assets. > > Not at all. Most servers have zero reason to have any Bitcoin's accessible > via them, so the presence of BTC privkeys is a gigantic red flag that they > are part of a honeypot. > I was talking about the traditional concept. From Wikipedia: "Generally, a honeypot consists of data (for example, in a network site) that appears to be a legitimate part of the site but is actually isolated and monitored, and that seems to contain information or a resource of value to attackers, which are then blocked." I would argue there are ways to make it look like it is not a honeypot (plenty of bitcoin services have had their hot wallets hacked before, and if the intruder only gains access to one server they wouldn't know that all the servers have the same honeypot on them). But I was just confirming that the proposal is for an obvious honeypot. > Re-read my last section on the "scorched earth" disincentive to > doublespend the intruder. > > The first time I read it I didn't realize that the second transaction the intruder has is designed to waste the honeypot AND additional funds belonging to the honeypot creator. That's pretty good, from a game theory perspective. --001a11420f8286b462053b63630e Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable


>I've always assumed honeypots were meant to look like regular, yet<= br> >poorly-secured, assets.

Not at all. Most servers have zero reason to have any Bitcoin's accessi= ble via them, so the presence of BTC privkeys is a gigantic red flag that t= hey are part of a honeypot.

I was talki= ng about the traditional concept. From Wikipedia: "Generally, a honeyp= ot consists of data (for example, in a network site) that appears to be a l= egitimate part of the site but is actually isolated and monitored, and that= seems to contain information or a resource of value to attackers, which ar= e then blocked."

I would argue = there are ways to make it look like it is not a honeypot (plenty of bitcoin= services have had their hot wallets hacked before, and if the intruder onl= y gains access to one server they wouldn't know that all the servers ha= ve the same honeypot on them). But=C2=A0I was just confirming that the prop= osal is for an obvious honeypot.


Re-read my last section on the "scorched earth" disincentive to d= oublespend the intruder.

The first time I read it I didn't realize that th= e second transaction the intruder has is designed to waste the honeypot AND= additional funds belonging to the honeypot creator. That's pretty good= , from a game theory perspective.
--001a11420f8286b462053b63630e--