<unnamed>

Public Key

npub1g5axyfxaqapyf55zljzes4zlpkhdaw568fmqyhggc244agc8ezhs3fug4s

Profile Code

nprofile1qqsy2wnzynwswsjy62p0epvc230smtk7h2dr5aszt5yv92675vru3tcpzpmhxue69uhkummnw3ezuamfdejsz8l8gp

Publishing to

nostr.wine

Last Notes

2023-06-07 15:42:23 UTC

- reply

📅 Original date posted:2015-07-15
📝 Original message:On Wed, Jul 15, 2015 at 12:32 PM, Peter Todd <pete at petertodd.org> wrote:
>
> "In a Sybil attack the attacker subverts the reputation system of a
> peer-to-peer network by creating a large number of pseudonymous
> identities, using them to gain a disproportionately large influence."
>
Our "identities" aren't pseudonymous.
In the case of Bitcoin, there's something like 6,000 nodes, so if that
> 20% is achived via outgoing connections you'd have 600 to 1200 active
> outgoing connections using up network resources. Meanwhile, the default
> is 8 outgoing connections - you're using about two orders of magnitude
> more resources.
>
You're not talking about a Sybil attack anymore, just resource use. We do
know how to change default configurations to offer more connections.
If you are achieving that via incoming connections, you're placing a big
> part of the relay network under central control. As we've seen in the
> case of Chainalysis's sybil attack, even unintentional confirguation
> screwups can cause serious and widespread issues due to the large number
> of nodes that can fail in one go. (note how Chainalysis's actions were
> described(1) as a sybil attack by multiple Bitcoin devs, including
> Gregory Maxwell, Wladimir van der Laan, and myself)
>
We're not Chainanalysis and we do not run hundreds of distinct nodes. Just
a few well-tuned ones.
> What you are doing is inherently incompatible with decentralization.
>
That's a matter of opinion. One could argue your actions and control
attempts hurt decentralization. Either way, no one should play the
decentralization police or act as a gatekeeper.
Question: Do you have relationships with mining pools? For instance, are
> you looking at contracts to have transactions mined to guarantee
> confirmations?
>
No, we do not. We do not know anyone else having such contracts. As you
know, Coinbase also denied having such contracts in place [1]. But you seem
to have more relationships with mining pools than we do.
Thanks,
Matthieu
CTO and Founder, BlockCypher
[1]
http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2015-June/008864.html
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20150715/d6778351/attachment.html>

2023-06-07 15:42:22 UTC

- reply

📅 Original date posted:2015-07-15
📝 Original message:Hi,
Thanks for the bug report Simon, "responsible" disclosure on public forums
is always appreciated. We're working with ShapeShift to make sure we can
protect them appropriately against this specific attack in the future. As
"Me" and Adrian advised, I would also encourage you return the funds.
Regarding Peter's accusations on Twitter/Reddit/listserve, we have no idea
why we are his target. He has never met with our CEO, has no idea of our
business model, nor our company objectives. All his comments about us are
his speculations. I'm sure Peter knows what a Sybil attack actually is and
making such claims on a public forum is completely unfounded and uncalled
for. Stretching definitions beyond the point where they make sense is a
common rhetoric and political tool, not necessarily appropriate in a
professional or technical context.
We offer useful services for many startups like ourselves. We are good
actors in this space. As a startup we are also constrained by limited
resources (we're funded but far from larger companies resources). Companies
aren't built in a single day and we hope to do more to help
decentralization in the future as well. We're trying to further the
ecosystem with our small team, so the pot shots are puzzling.
Thanks,
Matthieu
On Wed, Jul 15, 2015 at 9:12 AM, Milly Bitcoin via bitcoin-dev <
bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
> Below are 2 examples why a systematic risk analysis needs to be used. The
> current situation is that you have developers making hyperbolic, demonizing
> statements that users are "spammers" and engaged in Sybil "attacks."
> Characterizing these activities as spam and Sybil attacks is not a
> systematic analysis, it is closer to the process used at the Salem Witch
> trials.
>
> If this process of demonetization is to take its natural course then these
> statements are "developer attacks" from a developer system that lacks
> proper incentives and is rife with conflicts of interest.
>
> Russ
>
>
> ... they need to
>> connect to a large % of nodes on the network; that right there is a
>> sybil attack. It's an approach that uses up connection slots for the
>> entire network and isn't scalable; if more than a few services were
>> doing that the Bitcoin network would become significantly less reliable,
>> at some point collapsing entirely.
>>
>
> ...
>
> > Spammers out there are being very disrepectful of my fullnode resources
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> bitcoin-dev mailing list
> bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org
> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20150715/a09b81f2/attachment-0001.html>