Re: [Bitcoin-development] "network disruption as a service" and proof of local storage

2015-03-27 Thread Thy Shizzle
If the IP discovery is your main motivation, why don't you introduce some onion routing into transactions? That would solve this problem easily, of course there is an overhead which will slightly slow down the relay of transactions but not significantly, also make it an option not enforced, for

Re: [Bitcoin-development] "network disruption as a service" and proof of local storage

2015-03-27 Thread Jeremy Spilman
> On Mar 27, 2015, at 8:16 AM, Matt Whitlock wrote: > > Isn't the goal of this exercise to ensure more full nodes on the network? Basically we're talking about a form of Sybil defense and better quantifying true blockchain resiliency by proof of storage. In this case the goal is to see if we

Re: [Bitcoin-development] "network disruption as a service" and proof of local storage

2015-03-27 Thread Matt Whitlock
On Friday, 27 March 2015, at 4:57 pm, Wladimir J. van der Laan wrote: > On Fri, Mar 27, 2015 at 11:16:43AM -0400, Matt Whitlock wrote: > > I agree that someone could do this, but why is that a problem? Isn't the > > goal of this exercise to ensure more full nodes on the network? In order to > > b

Re: [Bitcoin-development] "network disruption as a service" and proof of local storage

2015-03-27 Thread Matt Whitlock
On Friday, 27 March 2015, at 4:57 pm, Wladimir J. van der Laan wrote: > On Fri, Mar 27, 2015 at 11:16:43AM -0400, Matt Whitlock wrote: > > I agree that someone could do this, but why is that a problem? Isn't the > > goal of this exercise to ensure more full nodes on the network? In order to > > b

Re: [Bitcoin-development] "network disruption as a service" and proof of local storage

2015-03-27 Thread Robert McKay
The main motivation is to try and stop a single entity running lots of nodes in order to harvest transaction origin IPs. That's what's behind this. Probably the efforts are a waste of time.. if someone has to keep a few hundred copies of the blockchain around in order to keep IP specific preco

Re: [Bitcoin-development] "network disruption as a service" and proof of local storage

2015-03-27 Thread Matt Whitlock
I agree that someone could do this, but why is that a problem? Isn't the goal of this exercise to ensure more full nodes on the network? In order to be able to answer the challenges, an entity would need to be running a full node somewhere. Thus, they have contributed at least one additional ful

Re: [Bitcoin-development] "network disruption as a service" and proof of local storage

2015-03-27 Thread Robert McKay
Basically the problem with that is that someone could setup a single full node that has the blockchain and can answer those challenges and then a bunch of other non-full nodes that just proxy any such challenges to the single full node. Rob On 2015-03-26 23:04, Matt Whitlock wrote: > Maybe I'm