From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from sog-mx-4.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.194] helo=mx.sourceforge.net) by sfs-ml-3.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76) (envelope-from ) id 1Z25FM-000718-6T for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Mon, 08 Jun 2015 22:10:20 +0000 Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-4.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of hotmail.com designates 65.55.34.22 as permitted sender) client-ip=65.55.34.22; envelope-from=raystonn@hotmail.com; helo=COL004-OMC1S12.hotmail.com; Received: from col004-omc1s12.hotmail.com ([65.55.34.22]) by sog-mx-4.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.76) id 1Z25FL-00087o-B3 for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Mon, 08 Jun 2015 22:10:20 +0000 Received: from COL131-DS15 ([65.55.34.9]) by COL004-OMC1S12.hotmail.com over TLS secured channel with Microsoft SMTPSVC(7.5.7601.22751); Mon, 8 Jun 2015 15:10:13 -0700 X-TMN: [Cr/FzDmY6RppPIY9MUdsTI7cAIsxRhN5] X-Originating-Email: [raystonn@hotmail.com] Message-ID: From: "Raystonn ." To: "Btc Drak" References: <5574E39C.3090904@thinlink.com> <7E7DF414-6DDB-48A6-9199-D6883209B67D@newcastle.ac.uk> <20150608214443.GC19826@muck> In-Reply-To: Date: Mon, 8 Jun 2015 15:10:03 -0700 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_02C8_01D0A1FD.3264A980" X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal Importance: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Windows Live Mail 15.4.3555.308 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V15.4.3555.308 X-OriginalArrivalTime: 08 Jun 2015 22:10:13.0543 (UTC) FILETIME=[E4922B70:01D0A237] X-Spam-Score: -0.1 (/) X-Spam-Report: Spam Filtering performed by mx.sourceforge.net. See http://spamassassin.org/tag/ for more details. -1.5 SPF_CHECK_PASS SPF reports sender host as permitted sender for sender-domain 0.0 FREEMAIL_FROM Sender email is commonly abused enduser mail provider (raystonn[at]hotmail.com) -0.0 T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD Envelope sender domain matches handover relay domain -0.0 SPF_PASS SPF: sender matches SPF record -0.0 RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE RBL: Sender listed at http://www.dnswl.org/, no trust [65.55.34.22 listed in list.dnswl.org] 1.0 HTML_MESSAGE BODY: HTML included in message 1.0 FREEMAIL_REPLY From and body contain different freemails -0.6 AWL AWL: Adjusted score from AWL reputation of From: address X-Headers-End: 1Z25FL-00087o-B3 Cc: Bitcoin Dev , "Patrick Mccorry \(PGR\)" Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] New attack identified and potential solution described: Dropped-transaction spam attack against the blocksize limit X-BeenThere: bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 08 Jun 2015 22:10:20 -0000 ------=_NextPart_000_02C8_01D0A1FD.3264A980 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Not forgetting, simply deferring discussion on that. We=E2=80=99ve a = much smaller limit to deal with right now. But even that limit would = have to go to remove this attack. From: Btc Drak=20 Sent: Monday, June 08, 2015 3:07 PM To: Raystonn .=20 Cc: Peter Todd ; Bitcoin Dev ; Patrick Mccorry (PGR)=20 Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] New attack identified and potential = solution described: Dropped-transaction spam attack against the = blocksize limit On Mon, Jun 8, 2015 at 11:01 PM, Raystonn . = wrote: No, with no blocksize limit, a spammer would would flood the network = with transactions until they ran out of money. I think you are forgetting even if you remove the blocksize limit, there = is still a hard message size limit imposed by the p2p protocol. Block = would de-facto be limited to this size. ------=_NextPart_000_02C8_01D0A1FD.3264A980 Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Not forgetting, simply deferring discussion on that.  = We=E2=80=99ve a much=20 smaller limit to deal with right now.  But even that limit would = have to go=20 to remove this attack.
 
From: Btc Drak
Sent: Monday, June 08, 2015 3:07 PM
Cc: Peter Todd ; Bitcoin = Dev ; Patrick Mccorry = (PGR)
Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] New attack identified and = potential solution described: Dropped-transaction spam attack against = the=20 blocksize limit
 
On Mon, Jun 8, 2015 at 11:01 PM, Raystonn . = <raystonn@hotmail.com> wrote:
No,=20 with no blocksize limit, a spammer would would flood the network=20 with
transactions until they ran out of money.
 
I think you are forgetting even if you remove the blocksize limit, = there is=20 still a hard message size limit imposed by the p2p protocol. Block would = de-facto be limited to this=20 size.
------=_NextPart_000_02C8_01D0A1FD.3264A980--