Date: Mon, 6 Nov 2017 14:50:00 -0500
From: Peter Todd <pete@petertodd.org>
To: Devrandom <c1.bitcoin@niftybox.net>,
	Bitcoin Protocol Discussion <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
Message-ID: <20171106195000.GA7245@fedora-23-dvm>
References: <CAB0O3SVjhG19R61B78hFCPwfwWemTXj=tOsvgAgoNbjFYXXAtg@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha256;
	protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="0OAP2g/MAC+5xKAE"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <CAB0O3SVjhG19R61B78hFCPwfwWemTXj=tOsvgAgoNbjFYXXAtg@mail.gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.23 (2014-03-12)
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Introducing a POW through a soft-fork
Precedence: list


--0OAP2g/MAC+5xKAE
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Wed, Nov 01, 2017 at 05:48:27AM +0000, Devrandom via bitcoin-dev wrote:

Some quick thoughts...

> Hi all,
>=20
> Feedback is welcome on the draft below.  In particular, I want to see if
> there is interest in further development of the idea and also interested =
in
> any attack vectors or undesirable dynamics.
>=20
> (Formatted version available here:
> https://github.com/devrandom/btc-papers/blob/master/aux-pow.md )
>=20
> # Soft-fork Introduction of a New POW

First of all, I don't think you can really call this a soft-fork; I'd call =
it a
"pseudo-soft-fork"

My reasoning being that after implementation, a chain with less total work =
than
the main chain - but more total SHA256^2 work than the main chain - might be
followed by non-supporting clients. It's got some properties of a soft-fork,
but it's security model is definitely different.

> ### Aux POW intermediate block
>=20
> Auxiliary POW blocks are introduced between normal blocks - i.e. the chain
> alternates between the two POWs.
> Each aux-POW block points to the previous normal block and contains
> transactions just like a normal block.
> Each normal block points to the previous aux-POW block and must contain a=
ll
> transactions from the aux-POW block.

Note how you're basically proposing for the block interval to be decreased,
which has security implications due to increased orphan rates.

> ### Heaviest chain rule change
>=20
> This is a semi-hard change, because non-upgraded nodes can get on the wro=
ng
> chain in case of attack.  However,

Exactly! Not really a soft-fork.

--=20
https://petertodd.org 'peter'[:-1]@petertodd.org

--0OAP2g/MAC+5xKAE
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc"
Content-Description: Digital signature

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----

iQEzBAEBCAAdFiEEMyU1607oofLeYpz8Y5kBEETor7IFAloAvOcACgkQY5kBEETo
r7IHCQf/f1rZFuOEuR1Lw2Es9T1j9Hap0eyoANmhsvHYe173aFOf2305tTkp2o+s
uZhmFuOiVqJ/We6KiWxw564bqdwf2fLeV/Gcr0KPQQgaiHPskvuk9mCPvZFXv3kN
1HiNVK162+1+w1LLFYHb7v3MQGrKsTB0D9aCrKBaZtEiTOZMnKdN1dlNPm7sIpxZ
pd+4A+tJ/V4ik2UWTtTkXyrkR5M4aQRVf/m6tDyk36asyYMyQbRcKoLpwK+YP2ek
Spzj54nurP4vUk6CYWSQRsgtjhnBklT3bL4Q9fTJlQQMXoO56tpD1bLH5u3P4LPt
+wcKwJ2z3j4ll1v07lWT3cg0RKOJmw==
=r80o
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--0OAP2g/MAC+5xKAE--