From: Mike Hearn <mike@plan99.net>
To: Gregory Maxwell <gmaxwell@gmail.com>
Cc: Bitcoin Dev <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>
Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] Draft BIP for Bloom filtering
Date: Fri, 26 Oct 2012 16:21:32 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <CANEZrP0=+L8HC4uVuwe5qc5CirUAUPWz18d08AebPcLpkv7Z8g@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAAS2fgSPk8QgYq2zcV+G2GoQyo5AfnRj4=+sURr34KZakhqazQ@mail.gmail.com>
> Because I can potentially waste bandwidth of all nodes forever (well as long
> as users are still scanning blocks with my transactions in them) with O(1) work.
And this gets you what?
Users who have active wallets will have their bandwidth wasted for as
long as you keep up the attack. Once you stop active wallets won't be
rescanning that part of the chain and new users won't be scanning it
either, as they skip blocks before their earliest key time using
getheaders. So basically you can waste the bandwidth of active users
for a while, by spamming transactions. This is not a new attack.
Anyway, it's trivial to DoS the entire Bitcoin network today. It
hasn't ever happened. Maybe one day it will, but the only rationale
people can come up with for such an attack beyond random griefing is
governments, and complexity attacks are really not their style. Much
easier to just pass a law.
I'm not saying DoS should be ignored, but I do feel there are limits
to how far down that rabbithole it's worth going.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2012-10-26 14:21 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 34+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2012-10-24 15:56 [Bitcoin-development] Draft BIP for Bloom filtering Mike Hearn
2012-10-24 16:22 ` Pieter Wuille
2012-10-24 16:35 ` Mike Hearn
2012-10-24 17:11 ` Pieter Wuille
2012-10-24 18:54 ` Gavin Andresen
2012-10-24 19:00 ` Matt Corallo
2012-10-24 19:10 ` Mike Hearn
2012-10-24 20:29 ` Gavin Andresen
2012-10-24 20:58 ` Mike Hearn
2012-10-24 21:55 ` Jeff Garzik
2012-10-25 16:56 ` Gregory Maxwell
2012-10-25 17:01 ` Gregory Maxwell
2012-10-26 14:01 ` Mike Hearn
2012-10-26 14:17 ` Gregory Maxwell
2012-10-26 14:21 ` Mike Hearn [this message]
2012-10-26 14:34 ` Gregory Maxwell
2012-11-06 19:14 ` Pieter Wuille
2012-11-21 15:15 ` Pieter Wuille
2012-11-21 18:38 ` Matt Corallo
2012-11-27 21:10 ` Pieter Wuille
2013-01-10 15:21 ` Mike Hearn
2013-01-11 3:59 ` Matt Corallo
2013-01-11 5:02 ` Jeff Garzik
2013-01-11 14:11 ` Mike Hearn
2013-01-11 14:13 ` Mike Hearn
2013-01-16 10:43 ` Mike Hearn
2013-01-16 15:00 ` Matt Corallo
2013-01-18 16:38 ` Mike Hearn
2013-01-19 9:51 ` Andreas Schildbach
2013-01-30 11:09 ` Mike Hearn
2013-01-30 11:13 ` Mike Hearn
2013-02-06 16:33 ` Mike Hearn
2013-02-06 16:45 ` Gregory Maxwell
2013-02-20 12:44 ` Mike Hearn
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to='CANEZrP0=+L8HC4uVuwe5qc5CirUAUPWz18d08AebPcLpkv7Z8g@mail.gmail.com' \
--to=mike@plan99.net \
--cc=bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net \
--cc=gmaxwell@gmail.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox