Received: from sog-mx-3.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.193] helo=mx.sourceforge.net) by sfs-ml-3.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76) (envelope-from ) id 1WwuFo-0005RM-3X for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Tue, 17 Jun 2014 14:20:52 +0000 Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-3.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of gmail.com designates 209.85.223.175 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.85.223.175; envelope-from=christophe.biocca@gmail.com; helo=mail-ie0-f175.google.com; Received: from mail-ie0-f175.google.com ([209.85.223.175]) by sog-mx-3.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128) (Exim 4.76) id 1WwuFk-0007L2-Kr for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Tue, 17 Jun 2014 14:20:52 +0000 Received: by mail-ie0-f175.google.com with SMTP id tp5so6183150ieb.6 for ; Tue, 17 Jun 2014 07:20:42 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.50.98.100 with SMTP id eh4mr33953713igb.9.1403014842757; Tue, 17 Jun 2014 07:20:42 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.64.102.136 with HTTP; Tue, 17 Jun 2014 07:20:42 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: Date: Tue, 17 Jun 2014 10:20:42 -0400 Message-ID: From: Christophe Biocca To: =?UTF-8?B?UmHDumwgTWFydMOtbmV6?= Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Spam-Score: -1.6 (-) X-Spam-Report: Spam Filtering performed by mx.sourceforge.net. See http://spamassassin.org/tag/ for more details. -1.5 SPF_CHECK_PASS SPF reports sender host as permitted sender for sender-domain 0.0 FREEMAIL_FROM Sender email is commonly abused enduser mail provider (christophe.biocca[at]gmail.com) -0.0 SPF_PASS SPF: sender matches SPF record -0.1 DKIM_VALID_AU Message has a valid DKIM or DK signature from author's domain 0.1 DKIM_SIGNED Message has a DKIM or DK signature, not necessarily valid -0.1 DKIM_VALID Message has at least one valid DKIM or DK signature X-Headers-End: 1WwuFk-0007L2-Kr Cc: Bitcoin Dev Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] Proposals for improving Bitcoin mining decentralization X-BeenThere: bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 17 Jun 2014 14:20:52 -0000 https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Getblocktemplate is supposed to solve most of the pooling-centralization problems. Unfortunately, it is opt-in, and GHash.io doesn't support it. Also most miners don't care and don't do the work to set it up. To do transaction inclusion themselves, they'd need to run a full node, which is a bit more work and resources than just pointing hashpower at a stratum server. If you figure out a way to make GBT widely used (>50% hashpower), kudos to = you. On Tue, Jun 17, 2014 at 4:57 AM, Ra=C3=BAl Mart=C3=ADnez wro= te: > First of all I apologice due to the possible mistakes in my writing below= , I > am not a Bitcoin developer but I have some knowledge about it. > > ---- > > We all know the recent news, Ghash pool controlling 51% of the hashrate. > While some consider it a threat others think that is not harmful. > > The thing is that we have to do something to stop this from happening aga= in. > > My proposal is to start thinking about miners that join a pool like > independent miners and not slave miners, this includes creating a new min= ing > protocol that does not rely on the pool sending the list of transactions = to > include in a block. Each individual miner has to collect transactions by = his > own and mine that, this can be achieved by running a full node or by runn= ing > a SPV like node that ask other nodes for transactions. > > Once this protocol is developed and standarised we as a community could > require all pools to use it (because its better, because is more > trustless...), not by imposing it but by recommending it. > > Pool owners could send some instructions using this protocol to the miner > about how many transactions to include per block (some pools want small > blocks), how many 0 fee transactions to include, how much is the minimum = fee > per Kb to include transactions and some info about the Coinbase field in = the > block. > > This way is impossible to perform some of the possible 51% attacks: > > A pool owner cant mine a new chain (selfish mining) (pool clients have a = SPV > or full node that has checkpoints and ask other peers about the length of > the chain) > A pool owner can't perform double spends or reverse transactions (pool > clients know all the transactions relayed to the network, they know if th= ey > are already included on a block) > A pool owner cant decide which transactions not to include (but they can > configure the minimum fee). > A pool owner cant get all the rewards by avoiding other pools from mining > blocks (Because the pool client knows the last block independently that i= s > from his pool or other). > > > The only thing that a 51% pool owner can do is to shut down his pool and > drop the hashrate by 51% because he does not control the miners. > > If the pool owner owns all the hardware in the pool my proposal is not > valid, if the pool clients dont use this protocol my proposal is not vali= d. > > > I want to know if this is possible or its been developed or there is alre= ady > a working protocol that works like this, also I want to read other people= 's > ways to address this threat, thanks for reading. > > -------------------------------------------------------------------------= ----- > HPCC Systems Open Source Big Data Platform from LexisNexis Risk Solutions > Find What Matters Most in Your Big Data with HPCC Systems > Open Source. Fast. Scalable. Simple. Ideal for Dirty Data. > Leverages Graph Analysis for Fast Processing & Easy Data Exploration > http://p.sf.net/sfu/hpccsystems > _______________________________________________ > Bitcoin-development mailing list > Bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development >