Also think it would be useful.
Created an issue for it some time back:
https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/3802
I think nodes don't only have to connect to LAN nodes. Especially with
headers first.
They can still connect to other nodes as well. Having said that security
is problematic in
Very interesting Matt.
For what it's worth, in future bitcoinj is very likely to bootstrap from
Cartographer nodes (signed HTTP) rather than DNS, and we're also steadily
working towards Tor by default. So this approach will probably stop working
at some point. As breaking PorcFest would kind of
On Tuesday, 26 May 2015, at 1:15 am, Peter Todd wrote:
On Tue, May 26, 2015 at 12:52:07AM -0400, Matt Whitlock wrote:
On Monday, 25 May 2015, at 11:48 pm, Jim Phillips wrote:
Do any wallets actually do this yet?
Not that I know of, but they do seed their address database via DNS, which
Who would be performing a Sybil attack against themselves? We're talking about
a LAN here. All the nodes would be under the control of the same entity. In
that case, you actually want them all connecting solely to a central hub node
on the LAN, and the hub node should connect to diverse and
This is something you actually don't want. In order to make it as difficult
as possible for an attacker to perform a sybil attack, you want to choose a
set of peers that is as diverse, and unpredictable as possible.
On Mon, May 25, 2015 at 9:37 PM, Matt Whitlock b...@mattwhitlock.name
wrote:
On Tuesday, May 26, 2015 4:46:22 AM Kevin Greene wrote:
This is something you actually don't want. In order to make it as difficult
as possible for an attacker to perform a sybil attack, you want to choose a
set of peers that is as diverse, and unpredictable as possible.
It doesn't hurt to
This is very simple to do. Just ping the all nodes address (ff02::1) and try
connecting to TCP port 8333 of each node that responds. Shouldn't take but more
than a few milliseconds on any but the most densely populated LANs.
On Monday, 25 May 2015, at 11:06 pm, Jim Phillips wrote:
Is there
Do any wallets actually do this yet?
On May 25, 2015 11:37 PM, Matt Whitlock b...@mattwhitlock.name wrote:
This is very simple to do. Just ping the all nodes address (ff02::1) and
try connecting to TCP port 8333 of each node that responds. Shouldn't take
but more than a few milliseconds on any
This is true, but the device doesn't know if the LAN it's on is a safe
network or a hotel wifi, for example. So there would be a tricky UX there.
You'd have to ask the user during set up if this is a trusted LAN or not;
or something like that. That may not be an issue though depending on the
On Tue, May 26, 2015 at 12:52:07AM -0400, Matt Whitlock wrote:
On Monday, 25 May 2015, at 11:48 pm, Jim Phillips wrote:
Do any wallets actually do this yet?
Not that I know of, but they do seed their address database via DNS, which
you can poison if you control the LAN's DNS resolver. I
Is there any work being done on using some kind of zero-conf service
discovery protocol so that lightweight clients can find a full node on the
same LAN to peer with rather than having to tie up WAN bandwidth?
I envision a future where lightweight devices within a home use SPV over
WiFi to
On Monday, 25 May 2015, at 11:48 pm, Jim Phillips wrote:
Do any wallets actually do this yet?
Not that I know of, but they do seed their address database via DNS, which you
can poison if you control the LAN's DNS resolver. I did this for a Bitcoin-only
Wi-Fi network I operated at a remote
12 matches
Mail list logo
