diff options
| author | Raystonn . <raystonn@hotmail.com> | 2015-06-08 14:40:17 -0700 |
|---|---|---|
| committer | bitcoindev <bitcoindev@gnusha.org> | 2015-06-08 21:40:34 +0000 |
| commit | 36e5af2f1151d17f529cb59fb0df5622d7b3409b (patch) | |
| tree | 0add30cc8322bace0b8108e539dabc13d332c261 | |
| parent | 73a14bcd45ff1402979900e5f580196a7d26d791 (diff) | |
| download | pi-bitcoindev-36e5af2f1151d17f529cb59fb0df5622d7b3409b.tar.gz pi-bitcoindev-36e5af2f1151d17f529cb59fb0df5622d7b3409b.zip | |
Re: [Bitcoin-development] New attack identified and potential solution described: Dropped-transaction spam attack against the blocksize limit
| -rw-r--r-- | bf/6a179e172adde3ddef56259faa51f4335d9acb | 126 |
1 files changed, 126 insertions, 0 deletions
diff --git a/bf/6a179e172adde3ddef56259faa51f4335d9acb b/bf/6a179e172adde3ddef56259faa51f4335d9acb new file mode 100644 index 000000000..8376c4469 --- /dev/null +++ b/bf/6a179e172adde3ddef56259faa51f4335d9acb @@ -0,0 +1,126 @@ +Received: from sog-mx-2.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.192] + helo=mx.sourceforge.net) + by sfs-ml-4.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76) + (envelope-from <raystonn@hotmail.com>) id 1Z24mY-0003HZ-ED + for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; + Mon, 08 Jun 2015 21:40:34 +0000 +Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-2.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of hotmail.com + designates 65.55.34.141 as permitted sender) + client-ip=65.55.34.141; envelope-from=raystonn@hotmail.com; + helo=COL004-OMC3S3.hotmail.com; +Received: from col004-omc3s3.hotmail.com ([65.55.34.141]) + by sog-mx-2.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256) + (Exim 4.76) id 1Z24mX-00035j-HQ + for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; + Mon, 08 Jun 2015 21:40:34 +0000 +Received: from COL131-DS22 ([65.55.34.137]) by COL004-OMC3S3.hotmail.com over + TLS secured channel with Microsoft SMTPSVC(7.5.7601.22751); + Mon, 8 Jun 2015 14:40:27 -0700 +X-TMN: [KXwPcMphlFbDQvb+mZVa9KtYy6uYHSap] +X-Originating-Email: [raystonn@hotmail.com] +Message-ID: <COL131-DS227FCC3AAB9F46ED79E97CCDBF0@phx.gbl> +From: "Raystonn ." <raystonn@hotmail.com> +To: "Peter Todd" <pete@petertodd.org> +References: <5574E39C.3090904@thinlink.com> + <COL131-DS25374BEFA76744E26EB8CBCDBF0@phx.gbl> + <AD4A025F-D782-4094-9CBC-EBEF0DD04838@newcastle.ac.uk> + <COL131-DS2729F02884BC43E54C8D63CDBF0@phx.gbl> + <20150608213336.GA19826@muck> +In-Reply-To: <20150608213336.GA19826@muck> +Date: Mon, 8 Jun 2015 14:40:17 -0700 +MIME-Version: 1.0 +Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="iso-8859-1"; + reply-type=original +Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit +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 21:40:27.0782 (UTC) + FILETIME=[BC2CAA60:01D0A233] +X-Spam-Score: -0.9 (/) +X-Spam-Report: Spam Filtering performed by mx.sourceforge.net. + See http://spamassassin.org/tag/ for more details. + 0.2 STOX_REPLY_TYPE STOX_REPLY_TYPE + -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 RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE RBL: Sender listed at http://www.dnswl.org/, + no trust [65.55.34.141 listed in list.dnswl.org] + -0.0 T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD Envelope sender domain matches handover relay + domain + -0.0 SPF_PASS SPF: sender matches SPF record + 0.4 AWL AWL: Adjusted score from AWL reputation of From: address +X-Headers-End: 1Z24mX-00035j-HQ +Cc: Bitcoin Dev <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>, + "Patrick Mccorry \(PGR\)" <patrick.mccorry@newcastle.ac.uk> +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: <bitcoin-development.lists.sourceforge.net> +List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development>, + <mailto:bitcoin-development-request@lists.sourceforge.net?subject=unsubscribe> +List-Archive: <http://sourceforge.net/mailarchive/forum.php?forum_name=bitcoin-development> +List-Post: <mailto:bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net> +List-Help: <mailto:bitcoin-development-request@lists.sourceforge.net?subject=help> +List-Subscribe: <https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development>, + <mailto:bitcoin-development-request@lists.sourceforge.net?subject=subscribe> +X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 08 Jun 2015 21:40:34 -0000 + +> the only way a transaction can be removed from a Bitcoin Core mempool is +> through it getting mined, double-spent, or the node restarting. + +Right. And that results in some transactions with insufficient fees getting +dropped today after many hours. + +> The protection that we have against that attack is that you need access to +> a lot of bitcoins to pay enough fees. + +That's no protection against a well-funded private and/or public entity. +Without the block size limit, this attack doesn't exist. It would simply +result in a transfer of wealth from spammer to miners, which is a nicely +antifragile response for the Bitcoin network. + + +-----Original Message----- +From: Peter Todd +Sent: Monday, June 08, 2015 2:33 PM +To: Raystonn . +Cc: Patrick Mccorry (PGR) ; Bitcoin Dev +Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] New attack identified and potential +solution described: Dropped-transaction spam attack against the blocksize +limit + +> > there is no memory pool cap currently +> +> Real hardware does not have an infinite amount of RAM. Memory pool sizes +> cannot grow unbounded. Some transactions with insufficient fees do get +> dropped today after many hours. + +Actually they don't, which is an unfortunate problem with the existing +mempool implementation; the only way a transaction can be removed from a +Bitcoin Core mempool is through it getting mined, double-spent, or the +node restarting. + +The protection that we have against that attack is that you need access +to a lot of bitcoins to pay enough fees. With the 0.01mBTC/KB minimum +relay fee and $230 USD/BTC that works out to about $2.3kUSD/GB of ram +consumed, and furthermore, actually getting that many transactions to +propagate over the network is non-trivial. (no, I'm not going to tell +you how) + +The obvious solution is to cap the size of the mempool and evict +transactions lowest fee/KB first, but if you do that they you (further) +break zeroconf security. On the other hand, if you don't break zeroconf +security an attacker can prevent reasonable fee transactions from +propagating. + +I probably should get around to fixing this... + + + |