Gregory Maxwell [ARCHIVE] on Nostr: 📅 Original date posted:2014-07-28 📝 Original message:On Mon, Jul 28, 2014 at ...
📅 Original date posted:2014-07-28
📝 Original message:On Mon, Jul 28, 2014 at 5:31 AM, Robert McKay <robert at mckay.com> wrote:
> I don't think Sybil attack is the right term for this.. there is only
> one IP address.. one "identity".
The bitcoin protocol is more or less identityless. It's using up lots
of network capacity, "number of sockets" is as pretty close as you
get.
> I'm not even sure that this behaviour can be considered abuse.. it's
> pretty much following the rules and maybe even improving the transaction
> and block propagation.
It isn't relaying transactions or blocks as far as anyone with a
connection to it can tell.
and sure, probably not much to worry about— people have been running
spy nodes for a long time, at least that much is not new.
📝 Original message:On Mon, Jul 28, 2014 at 5:31 AM, Robert McKay <robert at mckay.com> wrote:
> I don't think Sybil attack is the right term for this.. there is only
> one IP address.. one "identity".
The bitcoin protocol is more or less identityless. It's using up lots
of network capacity, "number of sockets" is as pretty close as you
get.
> I'm not even sure that this behaviour can be considered abuse.. it's
> pretty much following the rules and maybe even improving the transaction
> and block propagation.
It isn't relaying transactions or blocks as far as anyone with a
connection to it can tell.
and sure, probably not much to worry about— people have been running
spy nodes for a long time, at least that much is not new.