📅 Original date posted:2015-06-29
📝 Original message:Den 30 jun 2015 03:00 skrev "Tom Harding" <tomh at thinlink.com>:
>
> On 6/29/2015 5:51 PM, Natanael wrote:
>>
>> What you ask to see implemented will trivially fall to a sybil attack.
It isn't securable. It is running on the honor system exclusively. It will
be attacked, it will fail, losses will be had, the attackers will walk away
with embarrassingly large sums.
>
>
> Oh please. Checking that a node does relay something is not much
different than banning it for relaying garbage.
>
> It just happens to require that you have two nodes and coordinate them
somehow. I didn't offer a complete design, don't claim magical properties,
and certainly didn't mean to imply that nodes passing a test could be
trusted (as you suggest with your "accountable parties").
But the check means nothing at all to you since no information which you
can learn from doing so can be trusted for use in decision making of any
kind, so why do it? Unless you pay for hosting of that particular node
which you test, you have no reason to care for any reason other than simple
statistics.
The claims I made is based on simple economic analysis - if *to be able to
attack* first requires effort and risk that exceed the payoff, you're
unlikely to try. Being legally accountable and identified in advance and
having to build reputation before being trusted with attack-worthy sums is
strongly discouraging.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20150630/4f0ff3aa/attachment.html>;
Natanael [ARCHIVE] /
npub179…lpmjt
2023-06-07 15:41:13
in reply to nevent1q…5zt7
Author Public Key
npub1798ncudyucap9jzzujjsgufx8tdykm8auzfledjcs6f6wf4ekqvq8lpmjtPublished at
2023-06-07 15:41:13Event JSON
{
"id": "7ae4750017432ec40b9d668af2d4f2f8007b3f33dcf0c3b036b71a0f7ef51d8c",
"pubkey": "f14f3c71a4e63a12c842e4a50471263ada4b6cfde093fcb6588693a726b9b018",
"created_at": 1686152473,
"kind": 1,
"tags": [
[
"e",
"8a75acfffe44f9748a902379feb70f856b01a438a0303ea9088c6c0d7a3ff10d",
"",
"root"
],
[
"e",
"fe670b49f68607e60fe1ee0aa790bc1b5f2e4284a2d4b18e01c61ea75c9a5d26",
"",
"reply"
],
[
"p",
"dc329a02c970aabf03b87185ef51c86afe4586fe3a148508af898af3fabc56a3"
]
],
"content": "📅 Original date posted:2015-06-29\n📝 Original message:Den 30 jun 2015 03:00 skrev \"Tom Harding\" \u003ctomh at thinlink.com\u003e:\n\u003e\n\u003e On 6/29/2015 5:51 PM, Natanael wrote:\n\u003e\u003e\n\u003e\u003e What you ask to see implemented will trivially fall to a sybil attack.\nIt isn't securable. It is running on the honor system exclusively. It will\nbe attacked, it will fail, losses will be had, the attackers will walk away\nwith embarrassingly large sums.\n\u003e\n\u003e\n\u003e Oh please. Checking that a node does relay something is not much\ndifferent than banning it for relaying garbage.\n\u003e\n\u003e It just happens to require that you have two nodes and coordinate them\nsomehow. I didn't offer a complete design, don't claim magical properties,\nand certainly didn't mean to imply that nodes passing a test could be\ntrusted (as you suggest with your \"accountable parties\").\n\nBut the check means nothing at all to you since no information which you\ncan learn from doing so can be trusted for use in decision making of any\nkind, so why do it? Unless you pay for hosting of that particular node\nwhich you test, you have no reason to care for any reason other than simple\nstatistics.\n\nThe claims I made is based on simple economic analysis - if *to be able to\nattack* first requires effort and risk that exceed the payoff, you're\nunlikely to try. Being legally accountable and identified in advance and\nhaving to build reputation before being trusted with attack-worthy sums is\nstrongly discouraging.\n-------------- next part --------------\nAn HTML attachment was scrubbed...\nURL: \u003chttp://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20150630/4f0ff3aa/attachment.html\u003e",
"sig": "4b1acb58ca33645a096ed0d83a7aed4122586b6b2fdeb6db6a3c5370b433e8b7111de3469bec8606297193df9dd660aea1bdc09807985abb6c222bc325992c51"
}