{"type":"rich","version":"1.0","author_name":"npub1wwmwdup5f2zpztry6805ympat8gpmtgdr0yuv5pu48rnt08un9vsg84enl","author_url":"https://nostr.ae/npub1wwmwdup5f2zpztry6805ympat8gpmtgdr0yuv5pu48rnt08un9vsg84enl","provider_name":"njump","provider_url":"https://nostr.ae","html":"📅 Original date posted:2013-04-09\n📝 Original message:On 4/9/2013 4:09 AM, Peter Todd wrote:\n\u003e On Tue, Apr 09, 2013 at 12:42:12PM +0200, Mike Hearn wrote:\n\u003e\u003e hack by changing the protocol. Nodes can serve up blocks encrypted under a\n\u003e\u003e random key. You only get the key when you finish the download. A blacklist\n\u003e NAK\n\u003e\n\u003e Makes bringing up a new node dependent on other nodes having consistent\n\u003e uptimes, particularly if you are on a low-bandwidth connection.\n\u003e\n\u003e\u003e can apply to Bloom filtering such that transactions which are known to be\n\u003e\u003e \"abusive\" require you to fully download the block rather than select the\n\u003e\u003e transactions with a filter. This means that people can still access the\n\u003e NAK\n\u003e\n\u003e No blacklists\n\u003e\nIt depends on how clever the spammers get encoding stuff. If law \nenforcement forensic tools can pull a jpeg header + child porn out of \nthe blockchain, then there's a problem that needs mitigation."}