t> Sent: 23/03/2015
> 4:50 PM To: Thy Shizzle<mailto:thyshiz...@outlook.com> Cc:
> bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net<mailto:bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>
>
>
Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] Criminal complaints against "network
disruption as a servi
search or otherwise.
>
> -----Original Message----- From: "odinn"
> Sent: 23/03/2015 1:48 PM To:
> "bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net"
> Subject: Re:
> [Bitcoin-development] Criminal complaints against "network
> disruption as a service"
om: "odinn"
> Sent: 23/03/2015 1:48 PM To:
> "bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net"
> Subject: Re:
> [Bitcoin-development] Criminal complaints against "network
> disruption as a service" startups
>
> If you (e.g. Chainalysis) or an
Re: [Bitcoin-development] Criminal complaints against "network
disruption as a service" startups
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
If you (e.g. Chainalysis) or anyone else are doing surveillance on the
network and gathering information for later use, and whether or not
the ultim
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
If you (e.g. Chainalysis) or anyone else are doing surveillance on the
network and gathering information for later use, and whether or not
the ultimate purpose is to divulge it to other parties for compliance
purposes, you can bet that ultimately the
Thanks Jan, we added several additional checks for non-standard protocol
responses, and also made the client revert to DNS seeding more quickly if
it runs into trouble, so it's now more robust against sybil/DOS attack. I
mentioned in the coindesk article that I didn't think what your nodes were
doi
What we were trying to achieve was determining the flow of funds between
countries by figuring out which country a transaction originates from.
To do that with a certain accuracy you need many nodes. We chose a class C
IP range as we knew that bitcoin core and others only connect to one node
in any
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 03/13/2015 05:24 PM, Mike Hearn wrote:
> Well they don't set NODE_NETWORK, so they don't claim to be
> providing network services. But then I guess the Chainalysis nodes
> could easily just clear that bit flag too.
If a peer claims to provide netwo
>
> Don't SPV clients announce their intentions by the act of uploading a
> filter?
>
Well they don't set NODE_NETWORK, so they don't claim to be providing
network services. But then I guess the Chainalysis nodes could easily just
clear that bit flag too.
> What I'd actually like to see is for n
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 03/13/2015 05:08 PM, Mike Hearn wrote:
>
> That definition would include all SPV clients?
Don't SPV clients announce their intentions by the act of uploading a
filter?
> I get what you are trying to do. It just seems extremely tricky.
Certainly
>
> I'm not talking about keeping logs, I mean purporting to be a network
> peer in order to gain a connection slot and then not behaving as one
> (not relaying transactions)
That definition would include all SPV clients?
I get what you are trying to do. It just seems extremely tricky.
-
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 03/13/2015 04:48 PM, Mike Hearn wrote:
> That would be rather new and tricky legal territory.
>
> But even putting the legal issues to one side, there are
> definitional issues.
>
> For instance if the Chainalysis nodes started following the
> pro
That would be rather new and tricky legal territory.
But even putting the legal issues to one side, there are definitional
issues.
For instance if the Chainalysis nodes started following the protocol specs
better and became just regular nodes that happen to keep logs, would that
still be a violat
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Given the recent news about Chainanalysis
(https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/2yvy6b/a_regulatory_compliance_service_is_sybil/),
and other companies who are disrupting the Bitcoin network
(https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/2we0d9/in_an_u
14 matches
Mail list logo
