Re: [Bitcoin-development] Time

2014-07-28 Thread Troy Benjegerdes
On Fri, Jul 25, 2014 at 12:30:11PM +0200, Mike Hearn wrote: > > > > Ok... 'time' on the blockchain could be 'gamed' ... but with great > > difficulty. > > > Unfortunately not: miners have in the past routinely gamed the timestamp in > order to use it as an extra nonce and squeeze some more gigaha

Re: [Bitcoin-development] Abnormally Large Tor node accepting only Bitcoin traffic

2014-07-28 Thread s7r
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 7/28/2014 5:08 PM, Gregory Maxwell wrote: > On Mon, Jul 28, 2014 at 5:31 AM, Robert McKay > 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 les

Re: [Bitcoin-development] Abnormally Large Tor node accepting only Bitcoin traffic

2014-07-28 Thread Gregory Maxwell
On Mon, Jul 28, 2014 at 5:31 AM, Robert McKay 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

Re: [Bitcoin-development] "On behalf of" BIP 70 extension proposal

2014-07-28 Thread Mike Hearn
> > I referred to your idea in > https://www.mail-archive.com/bitcoin-development%40lists.sourceforge.net/msg04076.html > > which > is indeed not the proposal itself. > Right, gotcha. Had forgotten about that.

Re: [Bitcoin-development] "On behalf of" BIP 70 extension proposal

2014-07-28 Thread Mark van Cuijk
On 28 Jul 2014, at 14:46 , Mike Hearn wrote: > I do like the idea coined by Mike that a PP can issue non-SSL certificates > for the purpose of merchant identification, as long as a customer is free to > determine whether he trusts the PP for this purpose. > > I don't think I proposed this exac

Re: [Bitcoin-development] "On behalf of" BIP 70 extension proposal

2014-07-28 Thread Mike Hearn
On Mon, Jul 28, 2014 at 11:01 AM, Mark van Cuijk wrote: > Good to see that it has been discussed, but I see the idea has been > postponed. > I'm not sure postponed is the right word. It wasn't in v1, but many useful things weren't. It's more like, a bunch of people have to do work to upgrade thi

Re: [Bitcoin-development] Abnormally Large Tor node accepting only Bitcoin traffic

2014-07-28 Thread Robert McKay
On Mon, 28 Jul 2014 07:28:15 -0400, Peter Todd wrote: > -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- > Hash: SHA256 > > I've got a bitcoin-only exit running myself and right now there is > absolutely no traffic leaving it. If the traffic coming from that > node > was legit I'd expect some to be exiting my n

Re: [Bitcoin-development] Abnormally Large Tor node accepting only Bitcoin traffic

2014-07-28 Thread s7r
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 7/28/2014 6:44 AM, Gregory Maxwell wrote: > On Sun, Jul 27, 2014 at 7:54 PM, m...@bitwatch.co > wrote: >> These website list Tor nodes by bandwidth: >> >> http://torstatus.blutmagie.de/index.php >> https://torstatus.rueckgr.at/index.php?SR=Bandwi

Re: [Bitcoin-development] Abnormally Large Tor node accepting only Bitcoin traffic

2014-07-28 Thread Peter Todd
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA256 I've got a bitcoin-only exit running myself and right now there is absolutely no traffic leaving it. If the traffic coming from that node was legit I'd expect some to be exiting my node too. Multiple people have confirmed the node is connected to

Re: [Bitcoin-development] Abnormally Large Tor node accepting only Bitcoin traffic

2014-07-28 Thread Mike Hearn
> As I pointed out above, — it isn't really. Without the exit flag, I > believe no tor node will select it to exit 8333 unless manually > configured. (someone following tor more closely than I could correct > if I'm wrong here) > The "exit" flag doesn't mean what you would expect it to mean. The

Re: [Bitcoin-development] "On behalf of" BIP 70 extension proposal

2014-07-28 Thread Mark van Cuijk
Good to see that it has been discussed, but I see the idea has been postponed. I agree our proposals don’t differ substantially. Besides naming, I think the differences are the algorithms that are used for signing the extended certificate / mandate by the merchant and the way backwards compatibi

Re: [Bitcoin-development] Abnormally Large Tor node accepting only Bitcoin traffic

2014-07-28 Thread Drak
Related to Russia's Tor bounty? http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/jul/25/russia-research-identify-users-tor On 28 Jul 2014 04:45, "Gregory Maxwell" wrote: > On Sun, Jul 27, 2014 at 7:54 PM, m...@bitwatch.co > wrote: > > These website list Tor nodes by bandwidth: > > > > http://torstatus.blut