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
|
Received: from sog-mx-3.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.193]
helo=mx.sourceforge.net)
by sfs-ml-4.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76)
(envelope-from <bip@mattwhitlock.name>) id 1XXL9h-0002Zo-7L
for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Fri, 26 Sep 2014 02:21:09 +0000
X-ACL-Warn:
Received: from resqmta-po-12v.sys.comcast.net ([96.114.154.171])
by sog-mx-3.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:AES128-SHA:128)
(Exim 4.76) id 1XXL9f-0007qD-Gq
for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Fri, 26 Sep 2014 02:21:09 +0000
Received: from resomta-po-11v.sys.comcast.net ([96.114.154.235])
by resqmta-po-12v.sys.comcast.net with comcast
id ve7X1o00654zqzk01e7XFZ; Fri, 26 Sep 2014 02:07:31 +0000
Received: from crushinator.localnet
([IPv6:2601:6:4800:47f:1e4e:1f4d:332c:3bf6])
by resomta-po-11v.sys.comcast.net with comcast
id ve7V1o0092JF60R01e7XJZ; Fri, 26 Sep 2014 02:07:31 +0000
From: Matt Whitlock <bip@mattwhitlock.name>
To: Aaron Voisine <voisine@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 25 Sep 2014 22:07:28 -0400
Message-ID: <1447373.AzvO89eGJS@crushinator>
User-Agent: KMail/4.14.1 (Linux/3.14.14-gentoo; KDE/4.14.1; x86_64; ; )
In-Reply-To: <CACq0ZD4Ki=7Tba_2UhmuH-dPCbOnfXrJRcLPc+fP6Uur4FpG_A@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CACq0ZD4Ki=7Tba_2UhmuH-dPCbOnfXrJRcLPc+fP6Uur4FpG_A@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Spam-Report: Spam Filtering performed by mx.sourceforge.net.
See http://spamassassin.org/tag/ for more details.
-0.0 RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE RBL: Sender listed at http://www.dnswl.org/,
no trust [96.114.154.171 listed in list.dnswl.org]
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: 1XXL9f-0007qD-Gq
Cc: bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net
Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] SPV clients and relaying double spends
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: Fri, 26 Sep 2014 02:21:09 -0000
What's to stop an attacker from broadcasting millions of spends of the same output(s) and overwhelming nodes with slower connections? Might it be a better strategy not to relay the actual transactions (after the first) but rather only propagate (once) some kind of double-spend alert?
On Thursday, 25 September 2014, at 7:02 pm, Aaron Voisine wrote:
> There was some discussion of having nodes relay double-spends in order
> to alert the network about double spend attempts.
>
> A lot more users will be using SPV wallets in the future, and one of
> the techniques SPV clients use to judge how likely a transaction is to
> be confirmed is if it propagates across the network. I wonder if and
> when double-spend relaying is introduced, if nodes should also send
> BIP61 reject messages or something along those lines to indicate which
> transactions those nodes believe to be invalid, but are relaying
> anyway.
>
> This would be subject to sybil attacks, as is monitoring propagation,
> however it does still increase the cost of performing a 0 confirmation
> double spend attack on an SPV client above just relaying double-spends
> without indicating if a node believes the transaction to be valid.
>
> Aaron Voisine
> breadwallet.com
|
