XT question?

[jubalix]

If the block size is bigger, doesn't that offer protection from spamming the blockchain as it will be so much more expensive to do?

So why would you need a *blacklist system*, (if that is what it is?)

I mean who is to say a person is a spammer has any less right than any other person use the block chain if they are willing to pay for it in BTC.


They will only be able to keep up the spam for so long as they it will cost BTC which is a finite amount and the BTC will be dustlike, and so any such concerted spam attack only makes BTC more scare and so will be one of an push price up.


Why then do we need any sort of "blacklist" *protection*, which ultimately must be a way to develaue one persons btc over another.

[Lauda]

Why didn't you ask this in some other thread? There are way too many XT threads.
AFAIK the protection isn't against spam transactions. It is for DoS attacks on individual nodes.

[Coinshot]

I agree, any form of blacklist is not a good way to fair distribution of power within bitcoin community. If there are outstanding
concerns regarding spam, then the case should be resolved in a way Coblee did with his altcoin.

btw "ddos against individual nodes" ? Is this really happening and are there not too many nodes that an attack would be meaningful ?

[jubalix]

Why didn't you ask this in some other thread? There are way too many XT threads.
AFAIK the protection isn't against spam transactions. It is for DoS attacks on individual nodes.

but what I am saying is there is no need for DOS in BTC, if you have paid for it your transactions get in first. A so called DOS is a misnomer all actors are legit at all times. So called DOS have to pay for there DOS.

[Blazr]

If the block size is bigger, doesn't that offer protection from spamming the blockchain as it will be so much more expensive to do?

Block sizes are chosen by miners. Miner get to choose which transactions go in blocks, if they include lots they'll have bigger blocks. Its the blocksize limit that is being changed, which is the biggest size block a miner can make.

So why would you need a *blacklist system*, (if that is what it is?)

XT contains some other changes unrelated to the fork and one of those is the somewhat controversial Tor blacklist. The main concern with this patch is that it pulls down a list of Tor nodes from torproject.org each time it starts. torproject now have logs of every time an Xt node is started along with it's IP, which they could use to try and determine which nodes were online at particular times. They could use that kind of information to de-anonymize users by figuring out which nodes were online whenever the user makes a transaction, any nodes that are continuously online whenever the user makes a tx are the ones that are most likely to belong to them.

Though It's not known what torproject would do with this information, I doubt they would use it for evil, but it is still a risk and other Bitcoin wallets have removed stuff similar to this for this reason.

[jubalix]

If the block size is bigger, doesn't that offer protection from spamming the blockchain as it will be so much more expensive to do?

Block sizes are chosen by miners. Miner get to choose which transactions go in blocks, if they include lots they'll have bigger blocks. Its the blocksize limit that is being changed, which is the biggest size block a miner can make.

So why would you need a *blacklist system*, (if that is what it is?)

XT contains some other changes unrelated to the fork and one of those is the somewhat controversial Tor blacklist. The main concern with this patch is that it pulls down a list of Tor nodes from torproject.org each time it starts. torproject now have logs of every time an Xt node is started along with it's IP, which they could use to try and determine which nodes were online at particular times. They could use that kind of information to de-anonymize users by figuring out which nodes were online whenever the user makes a transaction, any nodes that are continuously online whenever the user makes a tx are the ones that are most likely to belong to them.

Though It's not known what torproject would do with this information, I doubt they would use it for evil, but it is still a risk and other Bitcoin wallets have removed stuff similar to this for this reason.

It still seems to hold that those who pay the most fees will get included into a block, and so a miner will like to include lots of high value tranasctions over lower one so in any situation, the so called "DOS" has to pa for their attack and let them, they will run out of money/BTC.

The "blacklist is very dangerous, and will always be abused.

[jubalix]

Why didn't you ask this in some other thread? There are way too many XT threads.
AFAIK the protection isn't against spam transactions. It is for DoS attacks on individual nodes.

Hey LaudaM your usually a pretty mellow fellow what gives?

[Lauda]

Hey LaudaM your usually a pretty mellow fellow what gives?

Care to elaborate? I don't know the meaning of those words.
I've been saying this to a lot of people already. There are way too many threads about the same things. This could have been asked either via PM (e.g. me), or in the other numerous threads about blacklisting.

but what I am saying is there is no need for DOS in BTC, if you have paid for it your transactions get in first. A so called DOS is a misnomer all actors are legit at all times. So called DOS have to pay for there DOS.

Why do people DDoS any website? Do you think that they benefit from doing this? Basically Hearn said something about Gavin's node being under attack at some point (mostly via TOR) and thus they implemented this.
A blacklisting system is not needed. However blacklisting coins is not the same as blacklisting IPs.

fork fatigue.

Indeed.

[sAt0sHiFanClub]

Why didn't you ask this in some other thread? There are way too many XT threads.
AFAIK the protection isn't against spam transactions. It is for DoS attacks on individual nodes.

Hey LaudaM your usually a pretty mellow fellow what gives?

fork fatigue.