Published on: 2015-07-18T15:09:40+00:00
A thorough examination of the relay drop rules in Bitcoin XT, specifically regarding the min-relay-fee drop, has revealed that this drop in fees has led to double-spend attacks and wasted resources for nodes, resulting in crashes. The bitcoin-dev mailing list has been discussing this issue, with contributions from various members such as Mike Hearn, Gavin, Tom, Simon, Arne, Matthieu Riou, Peter Todd, and others. It is acknowledged that patches by Gavin and Tom were included in Bitcoin XT, but it is pointed out that the conversation was actually about the min-relay-fee drop that Mike Hearn wrote. This fee drop has allowed for double-spending and has caused nodes to waste bandwidth and memory, resulting in crashes. The discussion concludes with a digital signature and an attachment.Within the discussion, users inquire about pre- and post-Hearn relay drop rules in Bitcoin XT, seeking clarification on their relationship with the minrelaytxfee setting proposed in the 0.11.0 release notes. Simon shares their success with double-spend attacks against zeroconf accepting individuals and advises against relying on zeroconf transactions. They also mention that Shapeshift.io lost around 3 BTC due to these types of attacks. Matthieu Riou from BlockCypher is implicated in the discussion as well. Peter Todd accuses BlockCypher of being "inherently incompatible with decentralisation," suggesting they may have relationships with mining pools. Riou denies any such relationships exist and argues against Todd's accusations. Another user points out that Riou's company is not executing a Sybil attack on the network, despite connecting to a significant number of nodes. The discussion ends with warnings about the vulnerability of zeroconf transactions and the need to re-examine dust as an opportunity for microgiving.The discussion also touches on the concept of Sybil attacks in peer-to-peer networks, with Peter Todd explaining how they can occur and Matthieu Riou arguing that this is not the case in Bitcoin. Todd raises concerns about BlockCypher's resource use and their relationships with mining pools, to which Riou denies having any contracts. The discussion ends with Todd accusing BlockCypher of actions incompatible with decentralization, and Riou defending their services for startups and expressing their commitment to helping decentralization.Additionally, there are discussions about the potential of on-chain microtransaction systems and the need for re-evaluation of dust as a means of microgiving. The author promotes their project, abis.io, which aims to enable decentralized giving. The conversation shifts to the accusation of Sybil attacks made by Peter Todd, with other developers refuting these claims and highlighting the lack of expertise in systematic risk analysis among Bitcoin companies. There is also a discussion about the actions taken by Chainalysis, which were referred to as a Sybil attack, but the developers argue that it does not fit the definition of an attack according to ISO/IEC 27000.In another exchange, Matthieu Riou thanks Simon for reporting a bug and assures ShapeShift that they will be protected from future attacks. Riou responds to accusations made by Peter Todd on social media, stating that Todd does not understand their business model or objectives. Todd accuses BlockCypher of conducting a Sybil attack, but Riou dismisses this claim as unfounded. The discussion continues with concerns about BlockCypher's resource usage and its compatibility with decentralization. Riou denies having relationships with mining pools and emphasizes BlockCypher's commitment to helping decentralization despite limited resources.The discussion on the bitcoin-dev mailing list highlights the vulnerabilities of zeroconf transactions and warns users against relying on them. It also addresses the issues surrounding the relay drop rules in Bitcoin XT and the impact of double-spend attacks. The thread includes discussions about Sybil attacks, resource usage, and relationships with mining pools. Throughout the conversation, there are disagreements and clarifications among the participants, emphasizing the need for caution and further analysis in addressing these issues.Developers in the Bitcoin community have been making exaggerated and negative statements about users, accusing them of being spammers and engaging in Sybil attacks. However, these claims are baseless and lack evidence. In fact, if this trend continues, it can be seen as an attack on developers themselves, revealing conflicts of interest within the system. It is crucial to conduct a systematic risk analysis to avoid such unfounded accusations and ensure the reliability and scalability of the Bitcoin network.A member of the bitcoin-dev community questioned the notion that having a large number of standard nodes running on the network strengthens it. Pieter Wuille, a Bitcoin Core developer, responded by explaining that running many nodes does not actually enhance the network's strength in terms of reducing trust between participants.
Updated on: 2023-08-01T14:22:10.039964+00:00