Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-3.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of gmail.com
	designates 209.85.216.179 as permitted sender)
	client-ip=209.85.216.179; envelope-from=etotheipi@gmail.com;
	helo=mail-qc0-f179.google.com; 
Message-ID: <53813B91.2070309@gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 24 May 2014 20:38:41 -0400
From: Alan Reiner <etotheipi@gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64;
	rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.5.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Gregory Maxwell <gmaxwell@gmail.com>
References: <CAOXABZohe93SSRm1FN5ai2H97eBJV2j+LAjA-39YAaNmX=ep0Q@mail.gmail.com>	<CAAS2fgSJh83YEZjRfL81sKjC=nSKHtWT1qzS0evLJ9Gy6qdA1w@mail.gmail.com>	<CAOXABZoOnYSRf0Ktqxh8dx20Zi=E5gkp-8-C3-0ECudK=q05uA@mail.gmail.com>	<53813391.7040503@gmail.com>
	<CAAS2fgRSvbUdB80vQOvSBfCckzPASkw6wNzqZUk-h2pWiY8srg@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAAS2fgRSvbUdB80vQOvSBfCckzPASkw6wNzqZUk-h2pWiY8srg@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Cc: Bitcoin Development <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>
Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] Cut-through propagation of blocks
Precedence: list

On 05/24/2014 08:14 PM, Gregory Maxwell wrote:
> On Sat, May 24, 2014 at 5:04 PM, Alan Reiner <etotheipi@gmail.com> wrote:
>> I think the most important change is modifying the way Bitcoin Core
>> prioritizes blocks.  Right now it uses the first full block verified.
>> Instead, it should consider the first valid header received as highest
>> priority, but only mine on it once it has done full verification of the
> This directly opens an attack where as soon as you find a block you
> announce the header to the world and then you delay announcing the
> block content.  You can continue to mine on the block but no one else
> can (or alternatively they break their rule and risk extending an
> invalid block— bad news for SPV wallets)— then when you find a
> successor block or someone else finds a competing block you
> immediately announce the content.
>
> It basically means that you can always delay announcing a block and be
> sure that doing so doesn't deprive you of your winning position.
>
>

Would this not be solved by putting a expiration on application of this
logic?  For instance, if you haven't received the full new block within
5-10 seconds (perhaps adjusted based on local bandwidth), then the
header-received time is ignored.  Or is this too hacky?   I suppose this
is exactly what Ashley is trying to solve, she's just already made a few
more leaps forward in the design process than I have.  I'll stop
derailing it.