bitcoin/bips
1
0
Fork 0
mirror of https://github.com/bitcoin/bips.git synced 2025-05-26 12:10:14 +00:00
Code Issues Releases Wiki Activity

Integrate Wikipedia link into text.

Eric Voskuil 2017-02-11 15:37:20 -08:00
parent d5fb52bfc9
commit b308d59567
1 changed files with 1 additions and 3 deletions
Show Stats Download Patch File Download Diff File Expand all files Collapse all files

4
Comments:BIP-0151.md

@ -50,13 +50,11 @@ Without sufficient justification the remaining sections are moot. There is also
--Eric Voskuil, 2017-01-21
This is a poor forum for debate, so I will respond just briefly to Jonas' inline comments above. Each comment uses the term "passive". The use is both incorrect and irrelevant. The comments also fail to recognize that the peer may be the attacker.
This is a poor forum for debate, so I will respond just briefly to Jonas' inline comments above. Each comment uses the term "passive". The use is both [incorrect](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attack_(computing)) and irrelevant. The comments also fail to recognize that the peer may be the attacker.
* An "active attack" attempts to alter system resources or affect their operation.
* A "passive attack" attempts to learn or make use of information from the system but does not affect system resources. (E.g., wiretapping.)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attack_(computing)
Attaching a bitcoin node to the network is not an active attack. It is simply a way to monitor the traffic on the network. Attaching a large number of nodes to the network remains a passive attack, just as would be attaching a large number of monitors to wire traffic.
The distinction is however irrelevant, as previously discussed on bitcoin-dev, because the difficulty of the attack is more important than whether it is active or passive. It is actually much *easier* to attack the network by attaching nodes to it than to monitor wire traffic. Anyone can attach any number of nodes to the network. It is also irrelevant because the traffic itself is not private. The response that node *identity* is the way this is resolved lays bare the reality that BIP151 serves no purpose other than to support BIP150.