📅 Original date posted:2011-08-04
🗒️ Summary of this message: A network support like MSG_DOUBLESPEND may not be better due to the risk of DOS attacks, and alerts are more scalable and complementary.
📝 Original message:On Thu, Aug 4, 2011 at 6:10 PM, Stefan Thomas <moon at justmoon.de> wrote:
> Would network support like a MSG_DOUBLESPEND be better? I used to think
> yes, but looking at the reality of Transaction Radar, I'm not so sure.
> Nothing stops such a service from scaling up and connecting to thousands
> of random nodes (especially when the network itself grows bigger),
Except for the fact that such a party is a DOS attack on the network
which is already short on functioning listeners. I don't have much
doubt that people doing the "connect to everyone" are already causing
harm. There are some nodes in .ru/.ua which aggressively connect to me
(instant reconnects if I hang up on them) which have never passed me a
transaction in all my available logs.
Alerts scale better— both can have a place in the ecosystem, they're
actually complementary: Alerts are vulnerable to filtering by sibyl
attackers but they have deeper network penetration and where filtering
doesn't prevent them you don't need a connection to hear them.
Gregory Maxwell [ARCHIVE] /
npub1f2…crwet
2023-06-07 02:12:24
in reply to nevent1q…ct8j
Author Public Key
npub1f2nvlx49er5c7sqa43src6ssyp6snd4qwvtkwm5avc2l84cs84esecrwetPublished at
2023-06-07 02:12:24Event JSON
{
"id": "4c7862e978079f5990dd6ff3f4a20237d05b9d92310ddd930092f86a464139ee",
"pubkey": "4aa6cf9aa5c8e98f401dac603c6a10207509b6a07317676e9d6615f3d7103d73",
"created_at": 1686103944,
"kind": 1,
"tags": [
[
"e",
"f7bac66510d148bc7cd5c36f79897fafe3410a2bc9df45238a65f8429b9407f0",
"",
"root"
],
[
"e",
"4c20c7ce74272cd26e6fd2c5f8b908392001e3c930c00e2ebd71625b3fc18fd5",
"",
"reply"
],
[
"p",
"49f07bd32c0108a2903a0fa59f904ed312e0ea427d3269eb5fa910eb4a9e22c4"
]
],
"content": "📅 Original date posted:2011-08-04\n🗒️ Summary of this message: A network support like MSG_DOUBLESPEND may not be better due to the risk of DOS attacks, and alerts are more scalable and complementary.\n📝 Original message:On Thu, Aug 4, 2011 at 6:10 PM, Stefan Thomas \u003cmoon at justmoon.de\u003e wrote:\n\u003e Would network support like a MSG_DOUBLESPEND be better? I used to think\n\u003e yes, but looking at the reality of Transaction Radar, I'm not so sure.\n\u003e Nothing stops such a service from scaling up and connecting to thousands\n\u003e of random nodes (especially when the network itself grows bigger),\n\nExcept for the fact that such a party is a DOS attack on the network\nwhich is already short on functioning listeners. I don't have much\ndoubt that people doing the \"connect to everyone\" are already causing\nharm. There are some nodes in .ru/.ua which aggressively connect to me\n(instant reconnects if I hang up on them) which have never passed me a\ntransaction in all my available logs.\n\nAlerts scale better— both can have a place in the ecosystem, they're\nactually complementary: Alerts are vulnerable to filtering by sibyl\nattackers but they have deeper network penetration and where filtering\ndoesn't prevent them you don't need a connection to hear them.",
"sig": "1e4d498ab14d4ac3556dfb942bca9b125f38357e0ce5d5c826d6a308715dff0115d89aa315ee73602d3f7c221cda4d24e60b3f2e536e073eaa2fc826684f41e0"
}