Topic: What will happen to blacklisted coins? - page 3. (Read 3617 times)

Blacklisting IPs (or giving them lower priority as is in the new XT code) can be used just the same as how the great Firewall of China works. And could easily be used to give lower priority to certain countries by IP range. Sure you can jump behind a VPN, travel to another country etc. but why allow it in the first place.

I was ok with the XT block size upgrade. It made sense. But seeing that 90% of the code differences have to do with this blacklist code and not the block size (and the fact that Mike Hearn has advocated for blacklists) tells me that this is likely not about block size after all.

I really don't like the idea of having a central web server used in what is supposed to be a decentralized system.

You seem to think I hate Tor. I am actually the maintainer of a full blown Tor implementation (Orchid). I've done a lot of work on integrating it into bitcoinj and I'm basically the only guy who can actually move the needle on Tor/Bitcoin usage, by enabling the use of it by default in consumer wallets that have hundreds of thousands of installs. We're not there yet (it's still too slow) but we're a lot closer than before.

This doesn't change the fact that Tor is heavily abused. It can be useful but it's a frequent source of attacks of all kinds. So finding ways to get the good without the bad involves some tricky coding.

Below, you say "anyone can jam the network with just two IP addresses". Yes, that's unfortunate isn't it. I've been sounding the alarm about Bitcoin Core's poor DoS protection for years. Nobody listened, that's why I have now written a new anti-DoS system that can handle this sort of thing. It starts by clustering and deprioritising Tor because we've seen actual jamming attacks that came through Tor, and because using it is a lot safer and more convenient for an attacker than using your own IP addresses or using a botnet. But it absolutely should be extended to have more advanced heuristics. Instead of whinging that (gasp) loading a file from a web server is "insane", maybe you should be writing code instead.

So, how does that answer pedrog's question?
Or are you writing statements, that don't have a connection to the topic, on purpose?

I did not say blocking. I said treating them differently.

A central server used to treat some IPs differently than others.

Does not sound very decentralized.

I really expect better from you Elwar.
I think, you know, that even if there would be a blacklist of IPs, that has nothing to do, with blocking coins. You just can't block transactions by blocking IPs. That doesn't make any sense at all.

People are mixing up so many things on here already.

Someone could add a URL to a website in the Bitcoin client to check for IPs that should be treated differently.


Like...oh say....torproject.org

Even if someone was really trying to create a blacklisting mechanism to be used in bitcoin, I don't think it would be possible due to the nature of the system, in a centralized system like Ripple it can be made, not in bitcoin.

Can you elucidate us on how this could be achieved?

I did say 'taints ... to some extent'.
The anonymity set size of a single transaction is limited by the number of parties in it, obviously.
Unless chaumian blinding, zero knowledge proofs, or something dazzling has occurred, my statement is correct.

Isn't it obvious?
We can see every address that coins go to, or come from. Even passing thru a tumbler taints the outputs to some extent.

Stop spreading FUD please.

I send 'tainted' coins from address A to address X (which happens to be a mixer, but besides the mixer admin and myself, nobody can know this).

I receive different, untainted coins (completely unrelated to the ones I earlier sent to X) from a different address Y to address B.

There exists NO chain of transaction between X and Y. Also not indirect, or coinjoined, or whatever. Nothing.

How are my coins in address B still blacklisted?