Gavin Andresen [ARCHIVE] on Nostr: 📅 Original date posted:2011-12-17 🗒️ Summary of this message: Gavin Andresen ...
📅 Original date posted:2011-12-17
🗒️ Summary of this message: Gavin Andresen discusses the potential use of DHT's for transactions and the need for a secure scheme against malicious attacks. He also considers the possibility of full nodes refusing requests from lightweight nodes.
📝 Original message:There was a discussion about using DHT's for transactions a while back
on the forums:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=723.msg7908#msg7908
If you can figure out a scheme that is secure from malicious Sybil
attacks then you're smarter than I am.
And additional protocol messages for lightweight clients is a good
idea, as long as they don't make it a lot easier to pull off a
denial-of-service attacks on a "full" node.
Although I do also wonder if we'll ever run into a problem with full
nodes refusing to answer requests from lightweight nodes (there might
be a tragedy-of-the-commons problem lurking there).
--
--
Gavin Andresen
🗒️ Summary of this message: Gavin Andresen discusses the potential use of DHT's for transactions and the need for a secure scheme against malicious attacks. He also considers the possibility of full nodes refusing requests from lightweight nodes.
📝 Original message:There was a discussion about using DHT's for transactions a while back
on the forums:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=723.msg7908#msg7908
If you can figure out a scheme that is secure from malicious Sybil
attacks then you're smarter than I am.
And additional protocol messages for lightweight clients is a good
idea, as long as they don't make it a lot easier to pull off a
denial-of-service attacks on a "full" node.
Although I do also wonder if we'll ever run into a problem with full
nodes refusing to answer requests from lightweight nodes (there might
be a tragedy-of-the-commons problem lurking there).
--
--
Gavin Andresen