Re: [Bitcoin-development] Protocol extensions

[Christian Decker <decker.christian@gmail.com>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1819 bytes --]

At first the idea of using negative announces seems attractive, but
remember that a malicious node might trigger verification for every
transaction, which may lead to a DoS.

Regards,
Chris

On Thu, Dec 22, 2011 at 1:14 PM, Joel Joonatan Kaartinen <
joel.kaartinen@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Thu, 2011-12-22 at 11:52 +0000, Andy Parkins wrote:
> > Why should they have to?  Joining the network as a node is very low cost
> to
> > the other nodes.  You can't force any node not to be lazy, since their
> option
> > is to disconnect themselves.  As to maliciousness, that is defended
> against
> > because when a node negative announces a transaction, that transaction is
> > going to be checked (note that there is still no implicit trust) -- if a
> node
> > is incorrectly negative-announcing then it can justifiably be kicked.
>
> a node that is not doing any checking themselves can not reliably
> forward failed verifications without getting the blame for doing faulty
> work. Those nodes would then have the incentive not to relay the failed
> verifications. This ends up making it important to know which nodes will
> be checking transactions or not so you don't isolate yourself from other
> nodes that are also checking transactions.
>
> - Joel
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Write once. Port to many.
> Get the SDK and tools to simplify cross-platform app development. Create
> new or port existing apps to sell to consumers worldwide. Explore the
> Intel AppUpSM program developer opportunity. appdeveloper.intel.com/join
> http://p.sf.net/sfu/intel-appdev
> _______________________________________________
> Bitcoin-development mailing list
> Bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development
>

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 2614 bytes --]