path: root/6d/8278226942c11872186763969b112e1bf81b89

Return-Path: <jannes.faber@gmail.com>
Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org
	[172.17.192.35])
	by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 386EBF8A
	for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
	Fri, 25 Dec 2015 16:11:25 +0000 (UTC)
X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6
Received: from mail-lf0-f53.google.com (mail-lf0-f53.google.com
	[209.85.215.53])
	by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 36FB18C
	for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
	Fri, 25 Dec 2015 16:11:23 +0000 (UTC)
Received: by mail-lf0-f53.google.com with SMTP id y184so174276879lfc.1
	for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
	Fri, 25 Dec 2015 08:11:23 -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=gauQDyZASKDi49hJ3IXakL78q5Z2T+ymNCz47xLwHHU=;
	b=Y29pp9xg9PVen9eM3OuEYAWjfEXDibyXO4cFniFjVrERe1kZ8TSeC0NvH2syALXzZf
	0qJu6iBcMDrnWqsEKx/c6QVw/YjdYZo4Az/PlW9I4tbAL+TSvk96KfNRxTOvn+Ta4qF7
	5UbbKHkLmLfZ7dFgOkAetE7wQzZAWC2YqkbpeoSQJly0dnRimclY9EnbYdo94ROQJ1rV
	g2mh7EOHS5CTW1TnjyTvpZQCf518kGXiriJQpLLawrOEPjThMYoAw/jTEA09tcCrzRj2
	AM/vGQbbkvQa4kw8xbKbMpZ0QsKHA03kDFbHqNtKBJy2iodrnNVUnxXSuih/wLkodO0a
	VJAA==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
	d=1e100.net; s=20130820;
	h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date
	:message-id:subject:from:to:content-type;
	bh=gauQDyZASKDi49hJ3IXakL78q5Z2T+ymNCz47xLwHHU=;
	b=fE/0coyXSC56sYd05i3KGF0hLT8AdeZ9/aIOBeETfPUFw0C70TxJUY7DTQsJti0J75
	U8rY6qmRxxWfZqhrmxENEq1N4nmzf3qqQFnfEpveDOxeM1WhYBqQEngOdUJqjwMZW9U+
	76woq3s+m/FmO5TwlAzDm71x8+mE8QvyK8KvfyNyz7EGn6/qKbtPRIUOmYxrzC/kY4F9
	3Mp7Tcqo8i9C3sYUVom9Ghx3B2PPboIeM0mgYYg4+XwGYFI0fU6dYewKy+u5OSuvjk6R
	KCBt7rCvUmKLbUW2h/HuOwzvwbCN89lqDGNfYtqqPso19qK+v9wzKLTSTgCY8BjIl3A0
	T68Q==
X-Received: by 10.25.160.213 with SMTP id j204mr15849167lfe.85.1451059881172; 
	Fri, 25 Dec 2015 08:11:21 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-lb0-f176.google.com (mail-lb0-f176.google.com.
	[209.85.217.176])
	by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id ak1sm8083219lbc.2.2015.12.25.08.11.19
	for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
	(version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER);
	Fri, 25 Dec 2015 08:11:19 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-lb0-f176.google.com with SMTP id pv2so85014894lbb.1
	for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
	Fri, 25 Dec 2015 08:11:19 -0800 (PST)
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQkofZWnXkdVKqd27iE1DHImZGCkBZT9nDwZuoBc6uUkd/m4Cv8TIDrFRe8XBLCwwMTOUBdIbAizxPX9xht3QeA8xt/aYA==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.112.198.131 with SMTP id jc3mr9745026lbc.118.1451059879396; 
	Fri, 25 Dec 2015 08:11:19 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.112.157.199 with HTTP; Fri, 25 Dec 2015 08:11:18 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.112.157.199 with HTTP; Fri, 25 Dec 2015 08:11:18 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <CABT1wW=r5DPG1e6XFe7NMHrquo1FzygPCdjEJ2QQnmGbqVMH2Q@mail.gmail.com>
References: <20151219184240.GB12893@muck>
	<CAAcC9yvh2ma2dFhNDEKs7vfXyQF9L+T0YtRvOsJ15AbfVti=cw@mail.gmail.com>
	<219f125cee6ca68fd27016642e38fdf1@xbt.hk>
	<CAAcC9ys_t7X0WpQ8W3577M8GLiA5sPV2F1BJ9qZbnMkE-1j3+Q@mail.gmail.com>
	<aff8da46a69bdd7ef92ca87725866a5c@xbt.hk>
	<CAPkFh0vNECi1OmBwki+8NNAQbe6EG2FEE4RR5z=kYVLLDFHUXg@mail.gmail.com>
	<20151220132842.GA25481@muck>
	<CAPkFh0t-+WhZYVLyT_auLa87zAATNOH=CpU4S5H=n6S1wmZ-oQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<CABeL=0jgv3G8qx6wM+ZfwN154qhQY-GJdXnABc-iWL=YDNmhag@mail.gmail.com>
	<CABT1wW=r5DPG1e6XFe7NMHrquo1FzygPCdjEJ2QQnmGbqVMH2Q@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 25 Dec 2015 17:11:18 +0100
X-Gmail-Original-Message-ID: <CABeL=0h1w=WCGpLAchLk1mx67oKbcTcVnhZs-K5JdXe-9OcgAg@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CABeL=0h1w=WCGpLAchLk1mx67oKbcTcVnhZs-K5JdXe-9OcgAg@mail.gmail.com>
From: Jannes Faber <jannes.faber@gmail.com>
To: Ittay <ittay.eyal@cornell.edu>, 
	Bitcoin Dev <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a11c33f80a8eae60527bb34fc
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: Fri, 25 Dec 2015 18:29:14 +0000
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: Fri, 25 Dec 2015 16:11:25 -0000

--001a11c33f80a8eae60527bb34fc
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On 25 Dec 2015 12:15 p.m., "Ittay" <ittay.eyal@cornell.edu> wrote:

> As for masquerading as multiple small pools -- that's a very good point,
with a surprising answer: it doesn't really matter. An attacker attacks all
parts of the open pool proportionally to their size, and the result is
basically identical to that of attacking a single large pool.

While true, that's only relevant to the indiscriminate attacker! The
vigilante attacker that wants to hurt only pools that are too large,
doesn't even know that there's a need to attack as all of them seem small.

That's what i was saying.

>
> On Mon, Dec 21, 2015 at 1:39 PM, Jannes Faber via bitcoin-dev <
bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
>>
>> If you're saying a block withholding attack is a nice weapon to have to
dissuade large pools, isn't that easily defeated by large pools simply
masquerading as multiple small pools? As, for all we know, ghash may have
done?
>>
>> If you don't know who to attack there's no point in having the weapon.
While that weapon is still dangerous in the hands of others that are
indiscriminate, like the solo miners example of Peter Todd.
>>
>> Sorry if i misunderstood your point.
>>
>>
>> --
>> Jannes
>>
>> On 20 December 2015 at 18:00, Emin G=C3=BCn Sirer <
bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
>>>
>>> On Sun, Dec 20, 2015 at 8:28 AM, Peter Todd <pete@petertodd.org> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> There are a number of techniques that can be used to detect block
>>>> withholding attacks that you are not aware of. These techniques usuall=
y
>>>> have the characteristic that if known they can be avoided, so obviousl=
y
>>>> those who know about them are highly reluctant to reveal what exactly
>>>> they are. I personally know about some of them and have been asked to
>>>> keep that information secret, which I will.
>>>
>>>
>>> Indeed, there are lots of weak measures that one could employ against
>>> an uninformed attacker. As I mentioned before, these are unlikely to be
>>> effective against a savvy attacker, and this is a good thing.
>>>
>>>>
>>>> In the context of KYC, this techniques would likely hold up in court,
>>>> which means that if this stuff becomes a more serious problem it's
>>>> perfectly viable for large, well-resourced, pools to prevent block
>>>> withholding attacks, in part by removing anonymity of hashing power.
>>>> This would not be a positive development for the ecosystem.
>>>
>>>
>>> KYC has a particular financial-regulation connotation in Bitcoin
circles,
>>> of which I'm sure you're aware, and which you're using as a spectre.
>>> You don't mean government-regulated-KYC a la FINCEN and Bitcoin
>>> exchanges like Coinbase, you are just referring to a pool operator
>>> demanding to know that its customer is not coming from its competitors'
>>> data centers.
>>>
>>> And your prediction doesn't seem well-motivated or properly justified.
>>> There are tons of conditionals in your prediction, starting with the
premise
>>> that every single open pool would implement some notion of identity
>>> checking. I don't believe that will happen. Instead, we will have the
bigger
>>> pools become more suspicious of signing up new hash power, which is a
>>> good thing. And we will have small groups of people who have some reaso=
n
>>> for trusting each other (e.g. they know each other from IRC,
conferences,
>>> etc) band together into small pools. These are fantastic outcomes for
>>> decentralization.
>>>
>>>> Secondly, DRM tech can also easily be used to prevent block withholdin=
g
>>>> attacks by attesting to the honest of the hashing power. This is being
>>>> discussed in the industry, and again, this isn't a positive developmen=
t
>>>> for the ecosystem.
>>>
>>>
>>> DRM is a terrible application. Once again, I see that you're trying to
use those
>>> three letters as a spectre as well, knowing that most people hate DRM,
but
>>> keep in mind that DRM is just an application -- it's like pointing to
Adobe Flash
>>> to taint all browser plugins.
>>>
>>> The tech behind DRM is called "attestation," and it provides a
technical
>>> capability not possible by any other means. In essence, attestation can
ensure that
>>> a remote node is indeed running the code that it purports to be
running. Since
>>> most problems in computer security and distributed systems stem from no=
t
>>> knowing what protocol the attacker is going to follow, attestation is
the only
>>> technology we have that lets us step around this limitation.
>>>
>>> It can ensure, for instance,
>>>   - that a node purporting to be Bitcoin Core (vLatest) is indeed
running an
>>> unadulterated, latest version of Bitcoin Core
>>>   - that a node claiming that it does not harvest IP addresses from SPV
>>> clients indeed does not harvest IP addresses.
>>>   - that a cloud hashing outfit that rented out X terahashes to a user
did
>>> indeed rent out X terahashes to that particular user,
>>>   - that a miner operating on behalf of some pool P will not misbehave
and
>>> discard perfectly good blocks
>>> and so forth. All of these would be great for the ecosystem. Just
getting rid
>>> of the cloudhashing scams would put an end to a lot of heartache.
>>>
>>>> > Keep in mind that when an open pool gets big, like GHash did and
>>>> > two other pools did before them, the only thing at our disposal used
>>>> > to be to yell at people about centralization until they left the big
>>>> > pools and reformed into smaller groups. Not only was such yelling
>>>> > kind of desperate looking, it wasn't incredibly effective, either.
>>>> > We had no protocol mechanisms that put pressure on big pools to
>>>> > stop signing up people. Ittay's discovery changed that: pools that
>>>> > get to be very big by indiscriminately signing up miners are likely
to
>>>> > be infiltrated and their profitability will drop. And Peter's post i=
s
>>>> > evidence that this is, indeed, happening as predicted. This is a
>>>> > good outcome, it puts pressure on the big pools to not grow.
>>>>
>>>> GHash.io was not a pure pool - they owned and operated a significant
>>>> amount of physical hashing power, and it's not at all clear that their
%
>>>> of the network actually went down following that 51% debacle.
>>>
>>>
>>> Right, it's not clear at all that yelling at people has much effect. As
much
>>> fun as I had going to that meeting with GHash in London to ask them to
>>> back down off of the 51% boundary, I am pretty sure that yelling at
large
>>> open pools will not scale. We needed better mechanisms for keeping pool=
s
>>> in check.
>>>
>>> And Miner's Dilemma (MD) attacks are clearly quite effective. This is a
>>> time when we should count our blessings, not work actively to render
>>> them inoperable.
>>>
>>>> Currently a significant % of the hashing power - possibly a majority -
>>>> is in the form of large hashing installations whose owners
individually,
>>>> and definitely in trusting groups, have enough hashing power to solo
>>>> mine. Eyal's results indicate those miners have incentives to attack
>>>> pools, and additionally they have the incentive of killing off pools t=
o
>>>> make it difficult for new competition to get established, yet they
>>>> themselves are not vulnerable to that attack.
>>>
>>>
>>> There are indeed solo miners out there who can attack the big open
>>> pools. The loss of the biggest open pools would not be a bad outcome.
>>> Pools >25% pose a danger, and the home miner doesn't need a pool
>>> >25% for protection against variance.
>>>
>>>> > Peter, you allude to a specific suggestion from Luke-Jr. Can you
>>>> > please describe what it is?
>>>>
>>>> Basically you have the pool pick a secret k for each share, and commit
>>>> to H(k) in the share. Additionally the share commits to a target
divider
>>>> D. The PoW validity rule is then changed from H(block header) < T, to
be
>>>> H(block header) < T * D && H(H(block header) + k) < max_int / D
>>>
>>>
>>> Thanks, this requires a change to the Bitcoin PoW. Good luck with that!
>>>
>>> Once again, this suggestion would make the GHash-at-51% situation
>>> possible again. Working extra hard to re-enable those painful days
>>> sounds like a terrible idea.
>>>
>>> - egs
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> bitcoin-dev mailing list
>>> bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
>>> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
>>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> bitcoin-dev mailing list
>> bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
>> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
>>
>

--001a11c33f80a8eae60527bb34fc
Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<p dir=3D"ltr"><br>
On 25 Dec 2015 12:15 p.m., &quot;Ittay&quot; &lt;<a href=3D"mailto:ittay.ey=
al@cornell.edu">ittay.eyal@cornell.edu</a>&gt; wrote:</p>
<p dir=3D"ltr">&gt; As for=C2=A0masquerading as multiple small pools -- tha=
t&#39;s a very good point, with a surprising answer: it doesn&#39;t really =
matter. An attacker attacks all parts of the open pool proportionally to th=
eir size, and the result is basically identical to that of attacking a sing=
le large pool.=C2=A0</p>
<p dir=3D"ltr">While true, that&#39;s only relevant to the indiscriminate a=
ttacker! The vigilante attacker that wants to hurt only pools that are too =
large, doesn&#39;t even know that there&#39;s a need to attack as all of th=
em seem small.</p>
<p dir=3D"ltr">That&#39;s what i was saying.</p>
<p dir=3D"ltr">&gt;<br>
&gt; On Mon, Dec 21, 2015 at 1:39 PM, Jannes Faber via bitcoin-dev &lt;<a h=
ref=3D"mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org">bitcoin-dev@lists.linu=
xfoundation.org</a>&gt; wrote:<br>
&gt;&gt;<br>
&gt;&gt; If you&#39;re saying a block withholding attack is a nice weapon t=
o have to dissuade large pools, isn&#39;t that easily defeated by large poo=
ls simply masquerading as multiple small pools? As, for all we know, ghash =
may have done?<br>
&gt;&gt;<br>
&gt;&gt; If you don&#39;t know who to attack there&#39;s no point in having=
 the weapon. While that weapon is still dangerous in the hands of others th=
at are indiscriminate, like the solo miners example of Peter Todd.<br>
&gt;&gt;<br>
&gt;&gt; Sorry if i misunderstood your point.<br>
&gt;&gt;<br>
&gt;&gt;<br>
&gt;&gt; --<br>
&gt;&gt; Jannes<br>
&gt;&gt;<br>
&gt;&gt; On 20 December 2015 at 18:00, Emin G=C3=BCn Sirer &lt;<a href=3D"m=
ailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org">bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundat=
ion.org</a>&gt; wrote:<br>
&gt;&gt;&gt;<br>
&gt;&gt;&gt; On Sun, Dec 20, 2015 at 8:28 AM, Peter Todd &lt;<a href=3D"mai=
lto:pete@petertodd.org">pete@petertodd.org</a>&gt; wrote:<br>
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;<br>
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; There are a number of techniques that can be used to detec=
t block<br>
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; withholding attacks that you are not aware of. These techn=
iques usually<br>
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; have the characteristic that if known they can be avoided,=
 so obviously<br>
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; those who know about them are highly reluctant to reveal w=
hat exactly<br>
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; they are. I personally know about some of them and have be=
en asked to<br>
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; keep that information secret, which I will.<br>
&gt;&gt;&gt;<br>
&gt;&gt;&gt;<br>
&gt;&gt;&gt; Indeed, there are lots of weak measures that one could employ =
against=C2=A0<br>
&gt;&gt;&gt; an uninformed attacker. As I mentioned before, these are unlik=
ely to be<br>
&gt;&gt;&gt; effective against a savvy attacker, and this is a good thing.<=
br>
&gt;&gt;&gt; =C2=A0<br>
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;<br>
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; In the context of KYC, this techniques would likely hold u=
p in court,<br>
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; which means that if this stuff becomes a more serious prob=
lem it&#39;s<br>
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; perfectly viable for large, well-resourced, pools to preve=
nt block<br>
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; withholding attacks, in part by removing anonymity of hash=
ing power.<br>
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; This would not be a positive development for the ecosystem=
.<br>
&gt;&gt;&gt;<br>
&gt;&gt;&gt;<br>
&gt;&gt;&gt; KYC has a particular financial-regulation connotation in Bitco=
in circles,=C2=A0<br>
&gt;&gt;&gt; of which I&#39;m sure you&#39;re aware, and which you&#39;re u=
sing as a spectre.=C2=A0<br>
&gt;&gt;&gt; You don&#39;t mean government-regulated-KYC a la FINCEN and Bi=
tcoin<br>
&gt;&gt;&gt; exchanges like Coinbase, you are just referring to a pool oper=
ator<br>
&gt;&gt;&gt; demanding to know that its customer is not coming from its com=
petitors&#39;<br>
&gt;&gt;&gt; data centers.<br>
&gt;&gt;&gt;<br>
&gt;&gt;&gt; And your prediction doesn&#39;t seem well-motivated or properl=
y justified.=C2=A0<br>
&gt;&gt;&gt; There are tons of conditionals in your prediction, starting wi=
th the premise<br>
&gt;&gt;&gt; that every single open pool would implement some notion of ide=
ntity=C2=A0<br>
&gt;&gt;&gt; checking. I don&#39;t believe that will happen. Instead, we wi=
ll have the bigger<br>
&gt;&gt;&gt; pools become more suspicious of signing up new hash power, whi=
ch is a<br>
&gt;&gt;&gt; good thing. And we will have small groups of people who have s=
ome reason<br>
&gt;&gt;&gt; for trusting each other (e.g. they know each other from IRC, c=
onferences,=C2=A0<br>
&gt;&gt;&gt; etc) band together into small pools. These are fantastic outco=
mes for<br>
&gt;&gt;&gt; decentralization.<br>
&gt;&gt;&gt;<br>
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; Secondly, DRM tech can also easily be used to prevent bloc=
k withholding<br>
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; attacks by attesting to the honest of the hashing power. T=
his is being<br>
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; discussed in the industry, and again, this isn&#39;t a pos=
itive development<br>
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; for the ecosystem.<br>
&gt;&gt;&gt;<br>
&gt;&gt;&gt;<br>
&gt;&gt;&gt; DRM is a terrible application. Once again, I see that you&#39;=
re trying to use those<br>
&gt;&gt;&gt; three letters as a spectre as well, knowing that most people h=
ate DRM, but=C2=A0<br>
&gt;&gt;&gt; keep in mind that DRM is just an application -- it&#39;s like =
pointing to Adobe Flash<br>
&gt;&gt;&gt; to taint all browser plugins.<br>
&gt;&gt;&gt;<br>
&gt;&gt;&gt; The tech behind DRM is called &quot;attestation,&quot; and it =
provides a technical=C2=A0<br>
&gt;&gt;&gt; capability not possible by any other means. In essence, attest=
ation can ensure that<br>
&gt;&gt;&gt; a remote node is indeed running the code that it purports to b=
e running. Since=C2=A0<br>
&gt;&gt;&gt; most problems in computer security and distributed systems ste=
m from not<br>
&gt;&gt;&gt; knowing what protocol the attacker is going to follow, attesta=
tion is the only=C2=A0<br>
&gt;&gt;&gt; technology we have that lets us step around this limitation.=
=C2=A0<br>
&gt;&gt;&gt;<br>
&gt;&gt;&gt; It can ensure, for instance,=C2=A0<br>
&gt;&gt;&gt; =C2=A0 - that a node purporting to be Bitcoin Core (vLatest) i=
s indeed running an<br>
&gt;&gt;&gt; unadulterated, latest version of Bitcoin Core=C2=A0<br>
&gt;&gt;&gt; =C2=A0 - that a node claiming that it does not harvest IP addr=
esses from SPV=C2=A0<br>
&gt;&gt;&gt; clients indeed does not harvest IP addresses.<br>
&gt;&gt;&gt; =C2=A0 - that a cloud hashing outfit that rented out X terahas=
hes to a user did=C2=A0<br>
&gt;&gt;&gt; indeed rent out X terahashes to that particular user,=C2=A0<br=
>
&gt;&gt;&gt; =C2=A0 - that a miner operating on behalf of some pool P will =
not misbehave and<br>
&gt;&gt;&gt; discard perfectly good blocks<br>
&gt;&gt;&gt; and so forth. All of these would be great for the ecosystem. J=
ust getting rid<br>
&gt;&gt;&gt; of the cloudhashing scams would put an end to a lot of heartac=
he.<br>
&gt;&gt;&gt;<br>
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; &gt; Keep in mind that when an open pool gets big, like GH=
ash did and<br>
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; &gt; two other pools did before them, the only thing at ou=
r disposal used<br>
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; &gt; to be to yell at people about centralization until th=
ey left the big<br>
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; &gt; pools and reformed into smaller groups. Not only was =
such yelling<br>
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; &gt; kind of desperate looking, it wasn&#39;t incredibly e=
ffective, either.<br>
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; &gt; We had no protocol mechanisms that put pressure on bi=
g pools to<br>
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; &gt; stop signing up people. Ittay&#39;s discovery changed=
 that: pools that<br>
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; &gt; get to be very big by indiscriminately signing up min=
ers are likely to<br>
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; &gt; be infiltrated and their profitability will drop. And=
 Peter&#39;s post is<br>
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; &gt; evidence that this is, indeed, happening as predicted=
. This is a<br>
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; &gt; good outcome, it puts pressure on the big pools to no=
t grow.<br>
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;<br>
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; GHash.io was not a pure pool - they owned and operated a s=
ignificant<br>
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; amount of physical hashing power, and it&#39;s not at all =
clear that their %<br>
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; of the network actually went down following that 51% debac=
le.<br>
&gt;&gt;&gt;<br>
&gt;&gt;&gt;<br>
&gt;&gt;&gt; Right, it&#39;s not clear at all that yelling at people has mu=
ch effect. As much<br>
&gt;&gt;&gt; fun as I had going to that meeting with GHash in London to ask=
 them to<br>
&gt;&gt;&gt; back down off of the 51% boundary, I am pretty sure that yelli=
ng at large<br>
&gt;&gt;&gt; open pools will not scale. We needed better mechanisms for kee=
ping pools<br>
&gt;&gt;&gt; in check.<br>
&gt;&gt;&gt;<br>
&gt;&gt;&gt; And Miner&#39;s Dilemma (MD) attacks are clearly quite effecti=
ve. This is a<br>
&gt;&gt;&gt; time when we should count our blessings, not work actively to =
render<br>
&gt;&gt;&gt; them inoperable.<br>
&gt;&gt;&gt;<br>
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; Currently a significant % of the hashing power - possibly =
a majority -<br>
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; is in the form of large hashing installations whose owners=
 individually,<br>
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; and definitely in trusting groups, have enough hashing pow=
er to solo<br>
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; mine. Eyal&#39;s results indicate those miners have incent=
ives to attack<br>
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; pools, and additionally they have the incentive of killing=
 off pools to<br>
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; make it difficult for new competition to get established, =
yet they<br>
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; themselves are not vulnerable to that attack.<br>
&gt;&gt;&gt;<br>
&gt;&gt;&gt;<br>
&gt;&gt;&gt; There are indeed solo miners out there who can attack the big =
open<br>
&gt;&gt;&gt; pools. The loss of the biggest open pools would not be a bad o=
utcome.<br>
&gt;&gt;&gt; Pools &gt;25% pose a danger, and the home miner doesn&#39;t ne=
ed a pool=C2=A0<br>
&gt;&gt;&gt; &gt;25% for protection against variance.=C2=A0<br>
&gt;&gt;&gt;<br>
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; &gt; Peter, you allude to a specific suggestion from Luke-=
Jr. Can you<br>
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; &gt; please describe what it is?<br>
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;<br>
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; Basically you have the pool pick a secret k for each share=
, and commit<br>
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; to H(k) in the share. Additionally the share commits to a =
target divider<br>
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; D. The PoW validity rule is then changed from H(block head=
er) &lt; T, to be<br>
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; H(block header) &lt; T * D &amp;&amp; H(H(block header) + =
k) &lt; max_int / D<br>
&gt;&gt;&gt;<br>
&gt;&gt;&gt;<br>
&gt;&gt;&gt; Thanks, this requires a change to the Bitcoin PoW. Good luck w=
ith that!=C2=A0<br>
&gt;&gt;&gt;<br>
&gt;&gt;&gt; Once again, this suggestion would make the GHash-at-51% situat=
ion=C2=A0<br>
&gt;&gt;&gt; possible again. Working extra hard to re-enable those painful =
days=C2=A0<br>
&gt;&gt;&gt; sounds like a terrible idea.=C2=A0<br>
&gt;&gt;&gt;<br>
&gt;&gt;&gt; - egs<br>
&gt;&gt;&gt;<br>
&gt;&gt;&gt;<br>
&gt;&gt;&gt; _______________________________________________<br>
&gt;&gt;&gt; bitcoin-dev mailing list<br>
&gt;&gt;&gt; <a href=3D"mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org">bitco=
in-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org</a><br>
&gt;&gt;&gt; <a href=3D"https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/=
bitcoin-dev">https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev=
</a><br>
&gt;&gt;&gt;<br>
&gt;&gt;<br>
&gt;&gt;<br>
&gt;&gt; _______________________________________________<br>
&gt;&gt; bitcoin-dev mailing list<br>
&gt;&gt; <a href=3D"mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org">bitcoin-d=
ev@lists.linuxfoundation.org</a><br>
&gt;&gt; <a href=3D"https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitc=
oin-dev">https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev</a>=
<br>
&gt;&gt;<br>
&gt;<br>
</p>

--001a11c33f80a8eae60527bb34fc--