> Where are you getting ideas like this? How fast do you think internet connections are?
As fast as the packet source wants? The only way to defend against a slowloris DoS is by accounting for it at the application layer, which is both unusual and difficult - as DoS attacks are usually handled at the transport layer. In this case that could mean applying a deadline for the block announcement in its entirety - which means mandating a minimum connection speed, and classifying every connection that dips below that as an attack... so you better have a good SLA with your upstream network. Well, that is no problem for centralized operations... Guess what happens to cryptocurrencies that adopt massive 128MB+ blocks in order to increase their transaction throughput - they become incredibly fragile as the slightest amount of packet loss starts waves of peer bans.
> Who are these miners that are struggling to send out 900KB ?
Anyone who wants to handicap a competing pool by forcing them to either wait for the complete false block, or waste time hashing on a fake block header.
When are you going to admit that you haven't thought this through?
Now you are trying to say that for after 11 years, miners will for some reason sit and wait for someone that isn't sending them a block fast enough and that other miners will attack people like that.
No one is waiting. If someone tries to send out a block slowly, someone else mines that block and sends it out fast. This is not difficult to understand.
It's amazing all the made up nonsense you've thrown out to try to predict a future that has already come and gone. Why are you so desperate to prove something so ridiculous? What you are talking about doesn't happen at all at any throughput on any cryptocurrency.
Check the reference client buglist, they got hit with a slowloris resource exhaustion combo. They fixed the resource exhaustion (kind of), they did not address the slowloris vulnerability. So again, you have no idea what you're talking about. Doubly so if you didn't write the backend of a major mining pool - because you're just running your mouth about code you haven't seen otherwise.
Are you actually saying that a bug in bitcoin is a reason that no cryptocurrency can scale to many times more transaction throughput? Why do ethereum and bitcoin cash work so well?
Did you write the backend of a mining pool and build in a bug where you wait for a block to be sent slowly? That's a pretty crazy mistake to just wait on a single connection.
As fast as the packet source wants? The only way to defend against a slowloris DoS is by accounting for it at the application layer, which is both unusual and difficult - as DoS attacks are usually handled at the transport layer. In this case that could mean applying a deadline for the block announcement in its entirety - which means mandating a minimum connection speed, and classifying every connection that dips below that as an attack... so you better have a good SLA with your upstream network. Well, that is no problem for centralized operations... Guess what happens to cryptocurrencies that adopt massive 128MB+ blocks in order to increase their transaction throughput - they become incredibly fragile as the slightest amount of packet loss starts waves of peer bans.
> Who are these miners that are struggling to send out 900KB ?
Anyone who wants to handicap a competing pool by forcing them to either wait for the complete false block, or waste time hashing on a fake block header.
When are you going to admit that you haven't thought this through?