From: Christophe Biocca <christophe.biocca@gmail•com>
To: Bitcoin Development <bitcoin-development@lists•sourceforge.net>
Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] SPV clients and relaying double spends
Date: Thu, 25 Sep 2014 23:34:50 -0400 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <CANOOu=8-x_eLXP7JARyqjVs6YbM+NRk3N_ProJ6D+U2rqeAohw@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CACq0ZD6sMHW6QEHHqDkaZwEwyfuk1CUjb0BRhzt3B+g+8CoP5A@mail.gmail.com>
A lot of this discussion has already occured. Some code was even
merged into master, then reverted.
See:
https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/4550
https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/4570
It would probably be a good idea to start from that code, as it
addresses many of the possible pitfalls you've been discussing.
On Thu, Sep 25, 2014 at 10:37 PM, Aaron Voisine <voisine@gmail•com> wrote:
> Of course you wouldn't want nodes to propagate alerts without
> independently verifying them, otherwise anyone could just issue alerts
> for every new transaction.
>
> Aaron Voisine
> breadwallet.com
>
>
> On Thu, Sep 25, 2014 at 7:16 PM, Matt Whitlock <bip@mattwhitlock•name> wrote:
>> Probably the first double-spend attempt (i.e., the second transaction to spend the same output(s) as another tx already in the mempool) would still need to be relayed. A simple "double-spend alert" wouldn't work because it could be forged. But after there have been two attempts to spend the same output, no further transactions spending that same output should be relayed, in order to prevent flooding the network.
>>
>>
>> On Thursday, 25 September 2014, at 7:12 pm, Aaron Voisine wrote:
>>> Something like that would be a great help for SPV clients that can't
>>> detect double spends on their own. (still limited of course to sybil
>>> attack concerns)
>>>
>>> Aaron Voisine
>>> breadwallet.com
>>>
>>>
>>> On Thu, Sep 25, 2014 at 7:07 PM, Matt Whitlock <bip@mattwhitlock•name> wrote:
>>> > What's to stop an attacker from broadcasting millions of spends of the same output(s) and overwhelming nodes with slower connections? Might it be a better strategy not to relay the actual transactions (after the first) but rather only propagate (once) some kind of double-spend alert?
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > On Thursday, 25 September 2014, at 7:02 pm, Aaron Voisine wrote:
>>> >> There was some discussion of having nodes relay double-spends in order
>>> >> to alert the network about double spend attempts.
>>> >>
>>> >> A lot more users will be using SPV wallets in the future, and one of
>>> >> the techniques SPV clients use to judge how likely a transaction is to
>>> >> be confirmed is if it propagates across the network. I wonder if and
>>> >> when double-spend relaying is introduced, if nodes should also send
>>> >> BIP61 reject messages or something along those lines to indicate which
>>> >> transactions those nodes believe to be invalid, but are relaying
>>> >> anyway.
>>> >>
>>> >> This would be subject to sybil attacks, as is monitoring propagation,
>>> >> however it does still increase the cost of performing a 0 confirmation
>>> >> double spend attack on an SPV client above just relaying double-spends
>>> >> without indicating if a node believes the transaction to be valid.
>>> >>
>>> >> Aaron Voisine
>>> >> breadwallet.com
>>> >
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Meet PCI DSS 3.0 Compliance Requirements with EventLog Analyzer
> Achieve PCI DSS 3.0 Compliant Status with Out-of-the-box PCI DSS Reports
> Are you Audit-Ready for PCI DSS 3.0 Compliance? Download White paper
> Comply to PCI DSS 3.0 Requirement 10 and 11.5 with EventLog Analyzer
> http://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/clk?id=154622311&iu=/4140/ostg.clktrk
> _______________________________________________
> Bitcoin-development mailing list
> Bitcoin-development@lists•sourceforge.net
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2014-09-26 3:34 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 10+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2014-09-26 2:02 Aaron Voisine
2014-09-26 2:07 ` Matt Whitlock
2014-09-26 2:12 ` Aaron Voisine
2014-09-26 2:16 ` Matt Whitlock
2014-09-26 2:37 ` Aaron Voisine
2014-09-26 3:34 ` Christophe Biocca [this message]
2014-09-28 2:55 ` Tom Harding
2014-09-28 5:15 ` [Bitcoin-development] replace-by-fee v0.9.3 release Peter Todd
2014-09-28 17:03 ` Luke Dashjr
2014-09-26 16:27 ` [Bitcoin-development] SPV clients and relaying double spends s7r
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to='CANOOu=8-x_eLXP7JARyqjVs6YbM+NRk3N_ProJ6D+U2rqeAohw@mail.gmail.com' \
--to=christophe.biocca@gmail$(echo .)com \
--cc=bitcoin-development@lists$(echo .)sourceforge.net \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox