原始文献 / 论坛帖 / Re: Where is the separate discussion devoted to possible Bitcoin weaknesses.

Re: Where is the separate discussion devoted to possible Bitcoin weaknesses.

Bitcointalk · 2010-08-11 22:40:25 UTC

AuthorSatoshi Nakamoto
TitleRe: Where is the separate discussion devoted to possible Bitcoin weaknesses.
Date2010-08-11 22:40:25 UTC
ForumBitcointalk · 原文

不用搞成这么 breaking 的改动。新节点可以长期接受旧交易,等大多数节点都升级了再开始拒绝没有 PoW 的交易。或者,永远接受旧交易,但每个时间段只限量。

交易加 PoW 我想过很多次,但最后总觉得 0.01 手续费本质上差不多、而且更好。0.01 基本就是工作量证明,只是不浪费。但如果问题是验证海量交易太慢,那 PoW 倒是能验得更快。

更 general 的 umbrella 式局部解法是:实现一个检测"收到的块数异常下跌"的机制。这样攻击者要从 DoS 里获利,还是得占全网相当大一部分算力。

引用自:gavinandresen,2010 年 8 月 11 日 04:10:56 PM(https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=788.msg8761#msg8761)

比特币的 p2p 网络会受到各种拒绝服务攻击。
行,我说出来了。

+1

这时候搞演示测试,只能证明我们已经知道的事,还会把开发时间从加固系统挪去线上救火。

英文原文

It doesn't have to be such a breaking change.  New nodes could accept old transactions for a long time until most nodes have already upgraded before starting to refuse transactions without PoW.  Or, they could always accept old transactions, but only a limited number per time period.

I've thought about PoW on transactions many times, but usually I end up thinking a 0.01 transaction fee is essentially similar and better.  0.01 is basically a proof of work, but not wasted.  But if the problem is validating loads of transactions, then PoW could be checked faster.

A more general umbrella partial solution would be to implement the idea where an unlikely dropoff in blocks received is detected.  Then an attacker would still need a substantial portion of the network's power to benefit from a DoS attack.

Quote from: gavinandresen on August 11, 2010, 04:10:56 PM(https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=788.msg8761#msg8761)Bitcoin's p2p network is subject to various kinds of denial of service attacks.

There, I said it.
+1

Any demonstration tests at this point would only show what we already know, and divert dev time from strengthening the system to operational fire fighting.