raymo at riseup.net [ARCHIVE] on Nostr: 📅 Original date posted:2021-06-18 📝 Original message:I think I respond to sybil ...

📅 Original date posted:2021-06-18
📝 Original message:I think I respond to sybil attack implicitly in Max response. Since the
only consensus must be between issuer and creditor and they already are
in a kind of web of trust connection.
By the way it would be great if you explain the attack scenario in more
detail and our conventional terms such as issuer, creditor, MT, GT, CT,
etc...
definitely we can solve it as well.


On 2021-06-18 13:37, Erik Aronesty wrote:
> It is vulnerable to sybil attacks or where the recipient is a victim
> of a proxy attack. If the recipient is not connected to a valid
> Network, then double spends could be allowed.
>
> as long as this protocol is intended for use of transactions around a
> dollar or so I don't see that being a financially lucrative attack.
>
> However consider a large department store. If I put a "fence" around
> that store and control all of its outbound peer connections, I can
> then allow double spends for the duration of my visit at the store.
>
> In order to defend against this large retailers would have to use
> distributed / trusted nodes and certificates.
>
> On Thu, Jun 17, 2021, 4:14 PM raymo via bitcoin-dev
> <bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>> I have a proposal for improve Bitcoin TPS and privacy, here is the
>> post.
>>
> https://raymo-49157.medium.com/time-to-boost-bitcoin-circulation-million-transactions-per-second-and-privacy-1eef8568d180
>> https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5344020.0
>> Can you please read it and share your idea about it.
>>
>> Cheers
>> Raymo
>> _______________________________________________
>> bitcoin-dev mailing list
>> bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org
>> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev