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
|
Received: from sog-mx-1.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.191]
helo=mx.sourceforge.net)
by sfs-ml-4.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76)
(envelope-from <gavinandresen@gmail.com>) id 1R3qia-0000k7-TP
for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Wed, 14 Sep 2011 14:45:40 +0000
Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-1.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of gmail.com
designates 209.85.161.47 as permitted sender)
client-ip=209.85.161.47; envelope-from=gavinandresen@gmail.com;
helo=mail-fx0-f47.google.com;
Received: from mail-fx0-f47.google.com ([209.85.161.47])
by sog-mx-1.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128)
(Exim 4.76) id 1R3qiX-00086j-76
for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Wed, 14 Sep 2011 14:45:40 +0000
Received: by mail-fx0-f47.google.com with SMTP id 1so2401181fxi.34
for <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>;
Wed, 14 Sep 2011 07:45:36 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.223.33.19 with SMTP id f19mr60024fad.122.1316011536772; Wed,
14 Sep 2011 07:45:36 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.152.25.105 with HTTP; Wed, 14 Sep 2011 07:45:36 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <4E6F83C3.9020108@jerviss.org>
References: <CABsx9T2XLj4gZVPYodteaVCm0chR1n4WLUoSqB6+NnmWCDqHKQ@mail.gmail.com>
<4E6F83C3.9020108@jerviss.org>
Date: Wed, 14 Sep 2011 10:45:36 -0400
Message-ID: <CABsx9T0JvnOaBy+irHtnN1zMWP8FiDTn=kn-01ky+V2MW1suTg@mail.gmail.com>
From: Gavin Andresen <gavinandresen@gmail.com>
To: kjj <kjj@jerviss.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
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
(gavinandresen[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: 1R3qiX-00086j-76
Cc: bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net
Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] Difficulty adjustment / time issues
X-BeenThere: bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: <bitcoin-development.lists.sourceforge.net>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development>,
<mailto:bitcoin-development-request@lists.sourceforge.net?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://sourceforge.net/mailarchive/forum.php?forum_name=bitcoin-development>
List-Post: <mailto:bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>
List-Help: <mailto:bitcoin-development-request@lists.sourceforge.net?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development>,
<mailto:bitcoin-development-request@lists.sourceforge.net?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 14 Sep 2011 14:45:41 -0000
> But that doesn't solve the whole problem, because the block timestamp
> checking is based on the assumption that the node is looking at the bitco=
in
> clock rather than the, ahem, real clock. =A0If we change the idea of netw=
ork
> time to NTP, we will then need to write (and test!) new block timestamp
> rules to account for the new assumptions.
Why?
The block timestamp rules currently give HOURS of wiggle-room for
timestamps. We can't change those rules without risking a chain split.
Here's a thumbnail sketch of what I'm thinking:
When new tip-of-chain blocks are received, IF their timestamp is
unreasonable with respect to system time and the previous block's
timestamp, then add them to a 'discouraged' list. (but follow the
current rules for outright rejecting blocks based on timestamps too
far in the future or past)
Modify the getwork code to build on the second-from-tip block if the
first-on-tip block is on the discouraged list.
Assuming a majority of pools/miners adopt the "discourage blocks with
stale timestamps" rule, that should squash any incentive for cartels
to try to start playing with difficulty-- you would have to have 50+%
power to start, or you risk producing mostly orphan blocks.
> Also, this is going to cause problems for at least one pool operator.
I'll trade more security for "make at least one pool operator have to
do some work" any day.
--=20
--
Gavin Andresen
|
