1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
|
Return-Path: <ibrightly@gmail.com>
Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org
[172.17.192.35])
by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id DF0EAFA7
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Mon, 28 Dec 2015 20:26:44 +0000 (UTC)
X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6
Received: from mail-yk0-f173.google.com (mail-yk0-f173.google.com
[209.85.160.173])
by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4AD05108
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Mon, 28 Dec 2015 20:26:44 +0000 (UTC)
Received: by mail-yk0-f173.google.com with SMTP id x67so111458383ykd.2
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Mon, 28 Dec 2015 12:26:44 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113;
h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to
:cc:content-type;
bh=ljsf0rko1ikx9NEbe2z+iIzdBS/Ybd1+ZR5U49Qt72Q=;
b=s01TrYfEc3LNWwVtsieVQJ8P+ScAcY+ujwIhIz/Cmg8nRQPm4zb3kjCA6DPsEaGnpM
frZnZjwP7t2vwfZqqY1R2ULMpaojBqJ5gwvjj8KpbxuAmgvw8D92cDUk0iKbf2GgfJs8
nXuuZTx2JsvInEFuoDUR2Ii2yX+8j2t6hg/RC7ZrnoEu21hJ3jO1556hrCRgxx5Xx0Eg
WOgjAAzm/7pWG1PmaFehc/I7JFRSYb+BVlCEKTONKbmqiEosSCR0sILsiqn+evpNLqJ1
eFoNAFNXH5PUU5KjYYU3dNE1quTAJnOOHrOPjxY9chxgaZOJWgNVmlxcprTwGx2vSiVg
LIhQ==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.129.57.135 with SMTP id g129mr41023929ywa.244.1451334403583;
Mon, 28 Dec 2015 12:26:43 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.129.132.211 with HTTP; Mon, 28 Dec 2015 12:26:43 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <20151228191228.GC12298@muck>
References: <20151219184240.GB12893@muck>
<CAAcC9yvh2ma2dFhNDEKs7vfXyQF9L+T0YtRvOsJ15AbfVti=cw@mail.gmail.com>
<4882BD35-D890-4860-9222-5C23AEB6AE89@mattcorallo.com>
<CAAcC9yspsPs3gbumS4rTOg-P-=V=tycn2Z1nVPGGHwJ-nP+PBg@mail.gmail.com>
<20151220044450.GA23942@muck>
<CAP3QyGJD3SaM6Bvvw66jAvVFkQhrfJfRQTxbbe8a=O1zK_P6tw@mail.gmail.com>
<20151228191228.GC12298@muck>
Date: Mon, 28 Dec 2015 15:26:43 -0500
Message-ID: <CAAre=ySPjm+cyLdBY_CZkLdfXE3OFYgECEUq05AyWfY0q1KuTQ@mail.gmail.com>
From: Ivan Brightly <ibrightly@gmail.com>
To: Peter Todd <pete@petertodd.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a114c78fe9377ed0527fb1f05
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.7 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED,
DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,FREEMAIL_FROM,HTML_MESSAGE,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW
autolearn=ham version=3.3.1
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on
smtp1.linux-foundation.org
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Mon, 28 Dec 2015 21:27:00 +0000
Cc: Bitcoin Dev <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] We need to fix the block withholding attack
X-BeenThere: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Bitcoin Development Discussion <bitcoin-dev.lists.linuxfoundation.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/options/bitcoin-dev>,
<mailto:bitcoin-dev-request@lists.linuxfoundation.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/>
List-Post: <mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
List-Help: <mailto:bitcoin-dev-request@lists.linuxfoundation.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev>,
<mailto:bitcoin-dev-request@lists.linuxfoundation.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 28 Dec 2015 20:26:45 -0000
--001a114c78fe9377ed0527fb1f05
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
>
> On Mon, Dec 28, 2015 at 2:12 PM, Peter Todd via bitcoin-dev <
> bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
> Far more concerning is network propagation effects between large and
> small miners. For that class of issues, if you are in an environemnt
> where selfish mining is possible - a fairly flat, easily DoS/sybil
> attacked network topology - the profitability difference between small
> and large miners even *without* attacks going on is a hugely worrying
> problem. OTOH, if you're blocksize is small enough that propagation time
> is negligable to profitability, then selfish mining attacks with <30%
> hashing power aren't much of a concern - they'll be naturally defeated
> by anti-DoS/anti-sybil measures.
>
Let's agree that one factor in mining profitability is bandwidth/network
reliability/stability. Why focus on that vs electricity contracts or
vertically integrated chip manufacturers? Surely, sufficient network
bandwidth is a more broadly available commodity than <$0.02/kwh
electricity, for example. I'm not sure that your stranded hydroelectric
miner is any more desirable than thousands of dorm room miners with access
to 10gbit university connections and free electricity.
--001a114c78fe9377ed0527fb1f05
Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
<div dir=3D"ltr"><div class=3D"gmail_extra"><div class=3D"gmail_quote"><blo=
ckquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left=
-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-style:solid;paddi=
ng-left:1ex">On Mon, Dec 28, 2015 at 2:12 PM, Peter Todd via bitcoin-dev=C2=
=A0<span dir=3D"ltr"><<a href=3D"mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundatio=
n.org" target=3D"_blank">bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org</a>></spa=
n>=C2=A0wrote:<br>
Far more concerning is network propagation effects between large and<br>
small miners. For that class of issues, if you are in an environemnt<br>
where selfish mining is possible - a fairly flat, easily DoS/sybil<br>
attacked network topology - the profitability difference between small<br>
and large miners even *without* attacks going on is a hugely worrying<br>
problem. OTOH, if you're blocksize is small enough that propagation tim=
e<br>
is negligable to profitability, then selfish mining attacks with <30%<br=
>
hashing power aren't much of a concern - they'll be naturally defea=
ted<br>
by anti-DoS/anti-sybil measures.<br></blockquote><div><br></div><div>Let=
9;s agree that one factor in mining profitability is bandwidth/network reli=
ability/stability. Why focus on that vs electricity contracts or vertically=
integrated chip manufacturers? Surely, sufficient network bandwidth is a m=
ore broadly available commodity than <$0.02/kwh electricity, for example=
. I'm not sure that your stranded hydroelectric miner is any more desir=
able than thousands of dorm room miners with access to 10gbit university co=
nnections and free electricity.</div></div></div></div>
--001a114c78fe9377ed0527fb1f05--
|
