đź“… Original date posted:2015-03-16
đź“ť Original message:What we were trying to achieve was determining the flow of funds between
countries by figuring out which country a transaction originates from.
To do that with a certain accuracy you need many nodes. We chose a class C
IP range as we knew that bitcoin core and others only connect to one node
in any class C IP range. We were not aware that breadwallet didn't follow
this practice. Breadwallet risked getting tar-pitted, but that was not our
intention and we are sorry about that.
Our nodes DID respond with valid blocks and merkle-blocks and allowed
everyone connecting to track the blockchain. We did however not relay
transactions. The 'service' bit in the version message is not meant for
telling whether or how the node relays transactions, it tells whether you
can ask for block headers only or full blocks.
Many implementations enforce non standard rules for handling transactions;
some nodes ignore transactions with address reuse, some nodes happily
forward double spends, and some nodes forward neither blocks not
transactions. We did blocks but not transactions.
In hindsight we should have done two things:
1. relay transactions
2. advertise address from 'foreign' nodes
Both would have fixed the problems that breadwallet experienced. My
understanding is that breadwallet now has the same 'class C' rule as
bitcoind, which would also fix it.
Getting back on the topic of this thread and whether it is illegal, your
guess is as good as mine. I don't think it is illegal to log incoming
connections and make statistical analysis on it. That would more or less
incriminate anyone who runs a web-server and looks into the access log.
At lease one Bitcoin service has been collecting IP addresses for years and
given them to anyone visiting their web-site (you know who) and I believe
that this practise is very wrong. We have no intention of giving IP
addresses away to anyone, but we believe that you are free to make
statistics on connection logs when nodes connect to you.
On a side note: When you make many connections to the network you see lots
of strange nodes and suspicious patterns. You can be certain that we were
not the only ones connected to many nodes.
My takeaway from this: If nodes that do not relay transactions is a problem
then there is stuff to fix.
/Jan
On Fri, Mar 13, 2015 at 10:48 PM, Mike Hearn <mike at plan99.net> wrote:
> That would be rather new and tricky legal territory.
>
> But even putting the legal issues to one side, there are definitional
> issues.
>
> For instance if the Chainalysis nodes started following the protocol specs
> better and became just regular nodes that happen to keep logs, would that
> still be a violation? If so, what about blockchain.info? It'd be shooting
> ourselves in the foot to try and forbid block explorers given how useful
> they are.
>
> If someone non-maliciously runs some nodes with debug logging turned on,
> and makes full system backups every night, and keeps those backups for
> years, are they in violation of whatever pseudo-law is involved?
>
> I think it's a bit early to think about these things right now. Michael
> Grønager and Jan Møller have been Bitcoin hackers for a long time. I'd be
> interested to know their thoughts on all of this.
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Dive into the World of Parallel Programming The Go Parallel Website,
> sponsored
> by Intel and developed in partnership with Slashdot Media, is your hub for
> all
> things parallel software development, from weekly thought leadership blogs
> to
> news, videos, case studies, tutorials and more. Take a look and join the
> conversation now. http://goparallel.sourceforge.net/
> _______________________________________________
> Bitcoin-development mailing list
> Bitcoin-development at lists.sourceforge.net
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20150316/1f5a72c2/attachment.html>;
Jan Møller [ARCHIVE] /
npub1sv…jg7a4
2023-06-07 15:31:56
in reply to nevent1q…xc9m
Author Public Key
npub1sv4psc5psjztuewa8xzcxrdsm743zl3lvje7ha36xp3da86hmpyqdjg7a4Published at
2023-06-07 15:31:56Event JSON
{
"id": "25206432e4786572b7a1c2b73ef83f21d99857462ff2b2332ceaeedb9521c49d",
"pubkey": "832a1862818484be65dd3985830db0dfab117e3f64b3ebf63a3062de9f57d848",
"created_at": 1686151916,
"kind": 1,
"tags": [
[
"e",
"86046bd5ae246477c11d9c398a0722099b91e54945dbc78003550ef71cbb04d0",
"",
"root"
],
[
"e",
"3cc90a0eafffcee9b57e94550ccf7520734f8144c187ba6df621968cc87945e2",
"",
"reply"
],
[
"p",
"b2b39b6f2c86908d3da9f500193abd5757b21cac328f838800a48c4d557c10dd"
]
],
"content": "📅 Original date posted:2015-03-16\n📝 Original message:What we were trying to achieve was determining the flow of funds between\ncountries by figuring out which country a transaction originates from.\nTo do that with a certain accuracy you need many nodes. We chose a class C\nIP range as we knew that bitcoin core and others only connect to one node\nin any class C IP range. We were not aware that breadwallet didn't follow\nthis practice. Breadwallet risked getting tar-pitted, but that was not our\nintention and we are sorry about that.\n\nOur nodes DID respond with valid blocks and merkle-blocks and allowed\neveryone connecting to track the blockchain. We did however not relay\ntransactions. The 'service' bit in the version message is not meant for\ntelling whether or how the node relays transactions, it tells whether you\ncan ask for block headers only or full blocks.\n\nMany implementations enforce non standard rules for handling transactions;\nsome nodes ignore transactions with address reuse, some nodes happily\nforward double spends, and some nodes forward neither blocks not\ntransactions. We did blocks but not transactions.\n\nIn hindsight we should have done two things:\n1. relay transactions\n2. advertise address from 'foreign' nodes\n\nBoth would have fixed the problems that breadwallet experienced. My\nunderstanding is that breadwallet now has the same 'class C' rule as\nbitcoind, which would also fix it.\n\nGetting back on the topic of this thread and whether it is illegal, your\nguess is as good as mine. I don't think it is illegal to log incoming\nconnections and make statistical analysis on it. That would more or less\nincriminate anyone who runs a web-server and looks into the access log.\nAt lease one Bitcoin service has been collecting IP addresses for years and\ngiven them to anyone visiting their web-site (you know who) and I believe\nthat this practise is very wrong. We have no intention of giving IP\naddresses away to anyone, but we believe that you are free to make\nstatistics on connection logs when nodes connect to you.\n\nOn a side note: When you make many connections to the network you see lots\nof strange nodes and suspicious patterns. You can be certain that we were\nnot the only ones connected to many nodes.\n\nMy takeaway from this: If nodes that do not relay transactions is a problem\nthen there is stuff to fix.\n\n/Jan\n\nOn Fri, Mar 13, 2015 at 10:48 PM, Mike Hearn \u003cmike at plan99.net\u003e wrote:\n\n\u003e That would be rather new and tricky legal territory.\n\u003e\n\u003e But even putting the legal issues to one side, there are definitional\n\u003e issues.\n\u003e\n\u003e For instance if the Chainalysis nodes started following the protocol specs\n\u003e better and became just regular nodes that happen to keep logs, would that\n\u003e still be a violation? If so, what about blockchain.info? It'd be shooting\n\u003e ourselves in the foot to try and forbid block explorers given how useful\n\u003e they are.\n\u003e\n\u003e If someone non-maliciously runs some nodes with debug logging turned on,\n\u003e and makes full system backups every night, and keeps those backups for\n\u003e years, are they in violation of whatever pseudo-law is involved?\n\u003e\n\u003e I think it's a bit early to think about these things right now. Michael\n\u003e Grønager and Jan Møller have been Bitcoin hackers for a long time. I'd be\n\u003e interested to know their thoughts on all of this.\n\u003e\n\u003e\n\u003e ------------------------------------------------------------------------------\n\u003e Dive into the World of Parallel Programming The Go Parallel Website,\n\u003e sponsored\n\u003e by Intel and developed in partnership with Slashdot Media, is your hub for\n\u003e all\n\u003e things parallel software development, from weekly thought leadership blogs\n\u003e to\n\u003e news, videos, case studies, tutorials and more. Take a look and join the\n\u003e conversation now. http://goparallel.sourceforge.net/\n\u003e _______________________________________________\n\u003e Bitcoin-development mailing list\n\u003e Bitcoin-development at lists.sourceforge.net\n\u003e https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development\n\u003e\n\u003e\n-------------- next part --------------\nAn HTML attachment was scrubbed...\nURL: \u003chttp://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20150316/1f5a72c2/attachment.html\u003e",
"sig": "c27d9781a151febe39851a7cd992563fde55759c51b7cf6b6919e850fbc956722ace1072a42ebaaf4af2ec46df15dfa1bf06fbea6048546b98cf9221ccf7dd68"
}