1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
|
Received: from sog-mx-2.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.192]
helo=mx.sourceforge.net)
by sfs-ml-1.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76)
(envelope-from <gmaxwell@gmail.com>) id 1WYNXV-0007Zc-Li
for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Thu, 10 Apr 2014 22:33:45 +0000
Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-2.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of gmail.com
designates 209.85.215.42 as permitted sender)
client-ip=209.85.215.42; envelope-from=gmaxwell@gmail.com;
helo=mail-la0-f42.google.com;
Received: from mail-la0-f42.google.com ([209.85.215.42])
by sog-mx-2.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128)
(Exim 4.76) id 1WYNXT-000868-KJ
for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Thu, 10 Apr 2014 22:33:45 +0000
Received: by mail-la0-f42.google.com with SMTP id ec20so2842973lab.15
for <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>;
Thu, 10 Apr 2014 15:33:37 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.112.27.133 with SMTP id t5mr13240328lbg.21.1397169216945;
Thu, 10 Apr 2014 15:33:36 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.112.89.68 with HTTP; Thu, 10 Apr 2014 15:33:36 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <53471A35.3040805@jcea.es>
References: <CANEZrP04O7EqB=TqyTiC7O1K2A9R0nKJ_ssANHKg=Byum8-LtA@mail.gmail.com>
<CA+s+GJDbYjwhpsV15a+7kCO_vTstEewVrwvqbnB=a5zOSwFC6Q@mail.gmail.com>
<CAAS2fgStmEpiUV4Yh-qqu6sZ+VZ5SiQPwp+QA=3X5zR52ia3OA@mail.gmail.com>
<CA+s+GJBxEC2MifJQY5-vn2zSOHo-UOm8B1vYHHOfuxq26=VscQ@mail.gmail.com>
<CAADm4BDDJkS_xdjUn=2Yzs4B0RXTvpzpd5Z_kDRorzrn1HWSng@mail.gmail.com>
<CANEZrP1rPZYkTLmx5GOdj67oQAgFjeaF-LCKAXpg5XsEhXYFuQ@mail.gmail.com>
<CAADm4BB8y=k_f7CG3tyX6ruWF0w3+hU2Szv7ajLp1x7KhS56GA@mail.gmail.com>
<CAPg+sBg88Q1Ddwsvuk3-17wO=0DF7L1wtxx4mWUoiV1=cWKhEQ@mail.gmail.com>
<53470E65.5080402@jcea.es> <534717F3.6@monetize.io>
<53471A35.3040805@jcea.es>
Date: Thu, 10 Apr 2014 15:33:36 -0700
Message-ID: <CAAS2fgR6LkFzJQ+SKwyBQam3XWkKhrJpnGpvofhDOFASXdhmQQ@mail.gmail.com>
From: Gregory Maxwell <gmaxwell@gmail.com>
To: Jesus Cea <jcea@jcea.es>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Spam-Score: -1.6 (-)
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
(gmaxwell[at]gmail.com)
-0.0 SPF_PASS SPF: sender matches SPF record
-0.1 DKIM_VALID_AU Message has a valid DKIM or DK signature from
author's domain
0.1 DKIM_SIGNED Message has a DKIM or DK signature,
not necessarily valid
-0.1 DKIM_VALID Message has at least one valid DKIM or DK signature
X-Headers-End: 1WYNXT-000868-KJ
Cc: Bitcoin Development <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>
Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] Chain pruning
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: Thu, 10 Apr 2014 22:33:45 -0000
On Thu, Apr 10, 2014 at 3:24 PM, Jesus Cea <jcea@jcea.es> wrote:
> On 11/04/14 00:15, Mark Friedenbach wrote:
>> Checkpoints will go away, eventually.
> Why?. The points in the forum thread seem pretty sensible.
Because with headers first synchronization the major problems that
they solve=E2=80=94 e.g. block flooding DOS attacks, weak chain isolation, =
and
checking shortcutting can be addressed in other more efficient ways
that don't result in putting trust in third parties.
They also cause really severe confusion about the security model.
Instead you can embed in software knoweldge that the longest chain is
"at least this long" to prevent isolation attacks, which is a lot
simpler and less trusting. You can also do randomized validation of
the deeply burried old history for performance, instead of constantly
depending on 'trusted parties' to update software or it gets slower
over time, and locally save your own validation fingerprints so if you
need to reinitilize data you can remember what you've check so far by
hash.
|
