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
|
Return-Path: <tier.nolan@gmail.com>
Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org
[172.17.192.35])
by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id EC61510F0
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Sat, 26 Dec 2015 16:09:19 +0000 (UTC)
X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6
Received: from mail-io0-f169.google.com (mail-io0-f169.google.com
[209.85.223.169])
by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5F3D9EC
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Sat, 26 Dec 2015 16:09:19 +0000 (UTC)
Received: by mail-io0-f169.google.com with SMTP id e126so276314894ioa.1
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Sat, 26 Dec 2015 08:09:19 -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
:content-type; bh=lJL4NZXSMUBoKCPqpXb1PtlROM0/LVQDp2/2owNxGZA=;
b=Awo33pwoyNKrd5twUMbHOL3SFliuuJKL3hCeaFXz9T9MgOTG7x5A8i0jNdtFYRiwbL
a5DgGS9RAUZ6TXPjC6U6ylJdw+EDiKzEnev5YoOP1LNU67/xMCB3tlugyED3gmCYrRtE
SVFEOrV9qD6GLhZxkPu8iBwHmMc1PtbfRWOJ3Qg9T4o7yuSxt8EvC62dYztZaPMYU8xW
8mKoY+jC5dDox9XzkmSpMS8yW2D2eBcgNA+d6W7Oc/bjkKd/lOO/v5ZJ1gMwWbgE7lGb
PZUQSoi9Or4iytTgZoQozATRm7Y9Y4N8y7yUgFR90Cv5DdY3Xo883ak6vUuzIFbk09cO
/ZMA==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.107.17.144 with SMTP id 16mr10257099ior.109.1451146158814;
Sat, 26 Dec 2015 08:09:18 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.79.77.75 with HTTP; Sat, 26 Dec 2015 08:09:18 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <ema8a70574-c28e-4c43-a1e3-5f2f4df7d3a2@platinum>
References: <20151220132842.GA25481@muck>
<ema8a70574-c28e-4c43-a1e3-5f2f4df7d3a2@platinum>
Date: Sat, 26 Dec 2015 16:09:18 +0000
Message-ID: <CAE-z3OUrCFkVQ+1th-BjkZf1YEhPjub7TA_2J-CRNmCs6Bb7Dg@mail.gmail.com>
From: Tier Nolan <tier.nolan@gmail.com>
To: Bitcoin Dev <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a113ff202503ab70527cf4bf4
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
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: Sat, 26 Dec 2015 16:09:20 -0000
--001a113ff202503ab70527cf4bf4
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
On Sat, Dec 26, 2015 at 8:23 AM, Eric Lombrozo via bitcoin-dev <
bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
> Unfortunately, this also means longer confirmation times, lower
> throughput, and lower miner revenue. Note, however, that confirmations
> would (on average) represent more PoW, so fewer confirmations would be
> required to achieve the same level of security.
>
No, the re-target compensates so that the number of blocks in the last two
weeks is 2016. If a soft fork forces miners to throw away 25% of their
blocks, then the difficulty will drop by 75% to keep things balanced.
Throwing away 75% of blocks has the same effect on difficulty as destroying
75% of mining hardware.
The block interval will only increase until the next re-target.
Slowly increasing the fraction of blocks which are thrown away gives the
re-target algorithm time to adjust, so it is another advantage.
If the rule was instantly changed so that 95% of blocks were thrown away,
then there could be up to 40 weeks until the next retarget and that would
give 200 minute block times until the adjustment.
--001a113ff202503ab70527cf4bf4
Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
<div dir=3D"ltr"><br><div class=3D"gmail_extra"><br><div class=3D"gmail_quo=
te">On Sat, Dec 26, 2015 at 8:23 AM, Eric Lombrozo via bitcoin-dev <span di=
r=3D"ltr"><<a href=3D"mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org" targ=
et=3D"_blank">bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org</a>></span> wrote:<b=
r><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:=
1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div><span class=3D""></span><div><span><div>
<div>Unfortunately, this also means longer confirmation times, lower throug=
hput, and lower miner revenue. Note, however, that confirmations would (on =
average) represent more PoW, so fewer confirmations would be required to ac=
hieve the same level of security.</div>
</div></span></div></div></blockquote><div><br><br></div><div>No, the re-ta=
rget compensates so that the number of blocks in the last two weeks is 2016=
.=C2=A0 If a soft fork forces miners to throw away 25% of their blocks, the=
n the difficulty will drop by 75% to keep things balanced.=C2=A0 Throwing a=
way 75% of blocks has the same effect on difficulty as destroying 75% of mi=
ning hardware.<br><br></div><div>The block interval will only increase unti=
l the next re-target.<br><br>Slowly increasing the fraction of blocks which=
are thrown away gives the re-target algorithm time to adjust, so it is ano=
ther advantage.=C2=A0 <br><br>If the rule was instantly changed so that 95%=
of blocks were thrown away, then there could be up to 40 weeks until the n=
ext retarget and that would give 200 minute block times until the adjustmen=
t.<br></div></div></div></div>
--001a113ff202503ab70527cf4bf4--
|
