-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Personally, I hope more people develop on-chain microtransaction systems (so long as open source, etc) ~ see http://dev.blockcypher.com/#microtransaction-api ~ and I hope the bitcoin community figures out ways to re-examine dust, rather than viewing it as a "problem," but instead, to re-examine this and interpret it as an "opportunity" for microgiving. (I won't claim there aren't challenges there, but I'll just throw that out there again..)
- - Please see, my little project, http://abis.io On 07/15/2015 05:08 PM, Matthieu Riou via bitcoin-dev wrote: > On Wed, Jul 15, 2015 at 12:32 PM, Peter Todd <p...@petertodd.org > <mailto:p...@petertodd.org>> wrote: > > > "In a Sybil attack the attacker subverts the reputation system of > a peer-to-peer network by creating a large number of pseudonymous > identities, using them to gain a disproportionately large > influence." > > > Our "identities" aren't pseudonymous. > > In the case of Bitcoin, there's something like 6,000 nodes, so if > that 20% is achived via outgoing connections you'd have 600 to 1200 > active outgoing connections using up network resources. Meanwhile, > the default is 8 outgoing connections - you're using about two > orders of magnitude more resources. > > > You're not talking about a Sybil attack anymore, just resource use. > We do know how to change default configurations to offer more > connections. > > If you are achieving that via incoming connections, you're placing > a big part of the relay network under central control. As we've > seen in the case of Chainalysis's sybil attack, even unintentional > confirguation screwups can cause serious and widespread issues due > to the large number of nodes that can fail in one go. (note how > Chainalysis's actions were described(1) as a sybil attack by > multiple Bitcoin devs, including Gregory Maxwell, Wladimir van der > Laan, and myself) > > > We're not Chainanalysis and we do not run hundreds of distinct > nodes. Just a few well-tuned ones. > > > What you are doing is inherently incompatible with > decentralization. > > > That's a matter of opinion. One could argue your actions and > control attempts hurt decentralization. Either way, no one should > play the decentralization police or act as a gatekeeper. > > Question: Do you have relationships with mining pools? For > instance, are you looking at contracts to have transactions mined > to guarantee confirmations? > > > No, we do not. We do not know anyone else having such contracts. As > you know, Coinbase also denied having such contracts in place [1]. > But you seem to have more relationships with mining pools than we > do. > > Thanks, Matthieu CTO and Founder, BlockCypher > > [1] > http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2015-June/00886 4.html > > > > _______________________________________________ bitcoin-dev mailing > list bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org > https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev > - -- http://abis.io ~ "a protocol concept to enable decentralization and expansion of a giving economy, and a new social good" https://keybase.io/odinn -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1 iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJVpz6hAAoJEGxwq/inSG8CdAMIAJfJcJaXyFjUVLi6iA03tpot 8e0SONC+kadLRTUn8GzAlpSgvKLcfqO5WvNKsjJenckrP+B6oSlT2e2u0QGehxl4 gGfTksOPzrBFCfWOZnVAaDr4uR7OAHM/AjXkpn1gQJsh+xBhyeUF1xapPeR/M+9e yXFtV0itZve93sKrtlo+J/VShEi9mPBYrFrJBK9o17ir5chXW/xzqGm1Ny3fS72U /g9zkdt+LBidaLXdPvfBjjmux18BM+IAifO41C9Q0eIN6x0zajvPd/Y3Mm5J/QUe p8qvj2Px75AYSCV0qzgMhETZdwYFor04f2zJ8u3WUB+AbupM9hewqvfPGiUi1qU= =S/aI -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- _______________________________________________ bitcoin-dev mailing list bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev