📅 Original date posted:2016-02-07
📝 Original message:On Sat, Feb 6, 2016 at 3:46 PM, Luke Dashjr via bitcoin-dev <
bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
> On Saturday, February 06, 2016 5:25:21 PM Tom Zander via bitcoin-dev wrote:
> > On Saturday, February 06, 2016 06:09:21 PM Jorge Timón via bitcoin-dev
> wrote:
> > > None of the reasons you list say anything about the fact that "being
> > > lost" (kicked out of the network) is a problem for those node's users.
> >
> > That's because its not.
> >
> > If you have a node that is "old" your node will stop getting new blocks.
> > The node will essentially just say "x-hours behind" with "x" getting
> larger
> > every hour. Funds don't get confirmed. etc.
>
> Until someone decides to attack you. Then you'll get 6, 10, maybe more
> blocks
> confirming a large 10000 BTC payment. If you're just a normal end user (or
> perhaps an automated system), you'll figure that payment is good and
> irreversibly hand over the title to the house.
>
There will be approximately zero percentage of hash power left on the
weaker branch of the fork, based on past soft-fork adoption by miners (they
upgrade VERY quickly from 75% to over 95%).
So it will take a week to get 6 confirmations.
If you are a full node, you are warned that your software is obsolete and
you must upgrade.
If you are a lightweight node, it SHOULD tell you something is wrong, but
even if it doesn't, given that people running lightweight nodes run them so
they don't have to be connected to the network 24/7, it is very likely
during that week you disconnect and reconnect to the network several times.
And every time you do that you increase your chances that you will connect
to full nodes on the majority branch of the chain, where you will be told
about the double-spend.
All of that is assuming that there is no OTHER mitigation done. DNS seeds
should avoid reporting nodes that look like they are in the middle of
initial block download (that are at a block height significantly behind the
rest of the network), for example.
--
--
Gavin Andresen
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20160207/7956ed21/attachment.html>;
Gavin Andresen [ARCHIVE] /
npub1s4…d44kw
2023-06-07 17:48:43
in reply to nevent1q…0y0m
Author Public Key
npub1s4lj77xuzcu7wy04afcr487f0r3za0f8n2775xrpkld2sv639mjqsd44kwSeen on
wss://relay.noswhere.comPublished at
2023-06-07 17:48:43Event JSON
{
"id": "6ca0a45afdb471324eebe2641fa143f88e07cac67de90ec2d2a029ee77b8eedd",
"pubkey": "857f2f78dc1639e711f5ea703a9fc978e22ebd279abdea1861b7daa833512ee4",
"created_at": 1686160123,
"kind": 1,
"tags": [
[
"e",
"299dc342b2928a854d3cdebebdfa1b5d7d113553560926ba6670328be5b1c1ce",
"",
"root"
],
[
"e",
"f98b4c5d4ca28c41cdc4d8049a707f3d929999a98eb7fdbbe43c173655fd4589",
"",
"reply"
],
[
"p",
"5a6d1f44482b67b5b0d30cc1e829b66a251f0dc99448377dbe3c5e0faf6c3803"
]
],
"content": "📅 Original date posted:2016-02-07\n📝 Original message:On Sat, Feb 6, 2016 at 3:46 PM, Luke Dashjr via bitcoin-dev \u003c\nbitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org\u003e wrote:\n\n\u003e On Saturday, February 06, 2016 5:25:21 PM Tom Zander via bitcoin-dev wrote:\n\u003e \u003e On Saturday, February 06, 2016 06:09:21 PM Jorge Timón via bitcoin-dev\n\u003e wrote:\n\u003e \u003e \u003e None of the reasons you list say anything about the fact that \"being\n\u003e \u003e \u003e lost\" (kicked out of the network) is a problem for those node's users.\n\u003e \u003e\n\u003e \u003e That's because its not.\n\u003e \u003e\n\u003e \u003e If you have a node that is \"old\" your node will stop getting new blocks.\n\u003e \u003e The node will essentially just say \"x-hours behind\" with \"x\" getting\n\u003e larger\n\u003e \u003e every hour. Funds don't get confirmed. etc.\n\u003e\n\u003e Until someone decides to attack you. Then you'll get 6, 10, maybe more\n\u003e blocks\n\u003e confirming a large 10000 BTC payment. If you're just a normal end user (or\n\u003e perhaps an automated system), you'll figure that payment is good and\n\u003e irreversibly hand over the title to the house.\n\u003e\n\nThere will be approximately zero percentage of hash power left on the\nweaker branch of the fork, based on past soft-fork adoption by miners (they\nupgrade VERY quickly from 75% to over 95%).\n\nSo it will take a week to get 6 confirmations.\n\nIf you are a full node, you are warned that your software is obsolete and\nyou must upgrade.\n\nIf you are a lightweight node, it SHOULD tell you something is wrong, but\neven if it doesn't, given that people running lightweight nodes run them so\nthey don't have to be connected to the network 24/7, it is very likely\nduring that week you disconnect and reconnect to the network several times.\nAnd every time you do that you increase your chances that you will connect\nto full nodes on the majority branch of the chain, where you will be told\nabout the double-spend.\n\nAll of that is assuming that there is no OTHER mitigation done. DNS seeds\nshould avoid reporting nodes that look like they are in the middle of\ninitial block download (that are at a block height significantly behind the\nrest of the network), for example.\n\n-- \n--\nGavin Andresen\n-------------- next part --------------\nAn HTML attachment was scrubbed...\nURL: \u003chttp://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20160207/7956ed21/attachment.html\u003e",
"sig": "8fbb8055b32cf68f6c35a2dd1c013ec7006ef0a4ddc6a6ec622223e833e482a79121ac25e709fa7489e8583a9fa3bd664c712d948903c3e065326bab19a19800"
}