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
122
123
124
125
126
127
|
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 18029B8E
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Thu, 18 May 2017 14:59:52 +0000 (UTC)
X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6
Received: from mail-oi0-f50.google.com (mail-oi0-f50.google.com
[209.85.218.50])
by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id BF85A10A
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Thu, 18 May 2017 14:59:51 +0000 (UTC)
Received: by mail-oi0-f50.google.com with SMTP id w10so57483708oif.0
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Thu, 18 May 2017 07:59:51 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025;
h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:cc;
bh=1fibNfsf3j9DSoOlmtyI0eOY3lgaHGj6MGQ2GeDIZIg=;
b=mGLXu+DP5mw320JUz1ycEsPKlNedNTTqswoGgEN4j3r86HG2+oPd0CABL2w5D6B6D4
fLP37xTMXLL4mwcJeUU2rdY9FDWv3bXRuRUVc66nqM1+yoRxa0JVgqMg7lDMaGKPawma
EjY+IqOwcoF6Mo8aTJlBYJh2A6HMjNGKIcSZhyiFxfzUvGIbU56KOkUt0sfom/HZd5oH
yMkDSnYdxzuUSTFgxa4xOT6cuD2gOQhJEFNd32jgp1EzITm1rjLYSYBJ2KJevLvpjRG/
LG9rNtnMz4BVBhIEe+5NDsml7FpumywOQmVcpelcCsVsbybs2Totf3KSKqerW1On16L8
0d5g==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
d=1e100.net; s=20161025;
h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date
:message-id:subject:cc;
bh=1fibNfsf3j9DSoOlmtyI0eOY3lgaHGj6MGQ2GeDIZIg=;
b=S5N8lFRHv652h0Rtgv0yqKc1v+dj0yAwCmjYu06w+a2xyf1f2bUIF211b+/jvPJB+v
ByNr1+kSauXMdYRXu3XjR7hhPSAYqgnaqTjkKTDjpvWFejRQXxrFXwbH3bxNUn6tiIPP
8UNcQCBGJEKB2Th0we3A+ywKrMHL2z010drel4bj8KcGJJmFFkC9J8rMDTrj2fCc5XgP
Y8ZfXOyMZzooahmk2HCUeRm4fZSml9peT8qtpo6WvCSX9gvMjMtUUB2HgHqQj4gpUxAR
CZQJSFwXj6acbyG4hNZ9WZOQn8Ehz5R8wN72fenVs5K60MsGIEUt5/K7EIY0bPZfPSYv
kJfw==
X-Gm-Message-State: AODbwcBzfxfzO81+lFuyb4gHspiy2KsSyBbwZmNt/3sfq542uplanuRn
vJybkEjTnHGOH0JsGIeSEM5Un9FoRQ==
X-Received: by 10.202.80.142 with SMTP id e136mr2859200oib.40.1495119591050;
Thu, 18 May 2017 07:59:51 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.74.100.89 with HTTP; Thu, 18 May 2017 07:59:50 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <4BA0FA5D-7B29-4A7F-BC5B-361ED00D5CB2@gmail.com>
References: <4BA0FA5D-7B29-4A7F-BC5B-361ED00D5CB2@gmail.com>
From: Tier Nolan <tier.nolan@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 18 May 2017 15:59:50 +0100
Message-ID: <CAE-z3OX2b4V+ERAYszokAUrSRPqpOCd2TovxBiqfeRTj4yuVpw@mail.gmail.com>
Cc: Bitcoin Dev <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="001a113d692e1f12d2054fcda88b"
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.5 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED,
DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,FREEMAIL_FROM,HTML_MESSAGE,MISSING_HEADERS,
RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE,RCVD_IN_SORBS_SPAM autolearn=no version=3.3.1
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on
smtp1.linux-foundation.org
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev]
=?utf-8?b?VHJlYXRpbmcg4oCYQVNJQ0JPT1NU4oCZIGFzIGEg?=
=?utf-8?q?Security_Vulnerability?=
X-BeenThere: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Bitcoin Protocol 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: Thu, 18 May 2017 14:59:52 -0000
--001a113d692e1f12d2054fcda88b
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
On Thu, May 18, 2017 at 2:44 PM, Cameron Garnham via bitcoin-dev <
bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
> 1. Significant deviations from the Bitcoin Security Model have been
> acknowledged as security vulnerabilities.
>
> The Bitcoin Security Model assumes that every input into the Proof-of-Work
> function should have the same difficulty of producing a desired output.
>
This isn't really that clear.
Arguably as long as the effort to find a block is proportional to the block
difficulty parameter, then it isn't an exploit. It is just an optimisation.
A quantum computer, for example, could find a block with effort
proportional to the square root of the difficulty parameter, so that would
count as an attack. Though in that case, the fix would likely be to tweak
the difficulty parameter update calculation.
A better definition would be something like "when performing work, each
hash should be independent".
ASICBOOST does multiple checks in parallel, so would violate that.
--001a113d692e1f12d2054fcda88b
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">On T=
hu, May 18, 2017 at 2:44 PM, Cameron Garnham via bitcoin-dev <span dir=3D"l=
tr"><<a href=3D"mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org" target=3D"=
_blank">bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org</a>></span> wrote:<br><blo=
ckquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #c=
cc solid;padding-left:1ex">
1.=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0Significant deviations from the Bitcoin Security Mode=
l have been acknowledged as security vulnerabilities.<br>
<br>
The Bitcoin Security Model assumes that every input into the Proof-of-Work =
function should have the same difficulty of producing a desired output.<br>=
</blockquote><div><br></div>This isn't really that clear.<br><br></div>=
<div class=3D"gmail_quote">Arguably as long as the effort to find a block i=
s proportional to the block difficulty parameter, then it isn't an expl=
oit.=C2=A0 It is just an optimisation.<br><br></div><div class=3D"gmail_quo=
te">A quantum computer, for example, could find a block with effort proport=
ional to the square root of the difficulty parameter, so that would count a=
s an attack.=C2=A0 Though in that case, the fix would likely be to tweak th=
e difficulty parameter update calculation.<br><br></div><div class=3D"gmail=
_quote">A better definition would be something like "when performing w=
ork, each hash should be independent".=C2=A0 <br><br></div><div class=
=3D"gmail_quote">ASICBOOST does multiple checks in parallel, so would viola=
te that.<br></div></div></div>
--001a113d692e1f12d2054fcda88b--
|
