path: root/76/efd956fcf0a405ba56d55ff3afa398c3b77f60

Return-Path: <willtech@live.com.au>
Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org
	[172.17.192.35])
	by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 650C718E6
	for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
	Sat,  3 Aug 2019 00:51:19 +0000 (UTC)
X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6
Received: from APC01-HK2-obe.outbound.protection.outlook.com
	(mail-oln040092255087.outbound.protection.outlook.com [40.92.255.87])
	by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6024B712
	for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
	Sat,  3 Aug 2019 00:51:16 +0000 (UTC)
ARC-Seal: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; s=arcselector9901; d=microsoft.com; cv=none;
	b=FsrYCZ3GwzgxcxaMWI+7UoUNOkM8dAqGETCRSiTHnhZ7hUK8wpIFEuCH6amHTaHqr0WtqC5DO1IhwoTkg4/joFGF8LuviRKCgW42NuBXjcaBmHyHTnuQ8OUM+C1nvwNG7p4kpWwglJgPNqNZj8NLst7Oe9C3Mv4UqcCM/wC9wlUU2y+ypxp3G8CQJ0+zmZXyddBINHG12WzDd/GVq8wdkit0JlsfBRhm6Kx2QhtE0NpBiY4Bdvk5dMCaYt639/AEp2ScsVm8xfolxKtCjtgllpDo0biM8L1voRCGBcQANxycWpEpi/sE/DnDJENe0mXNN2bbrX8Zuw0OwfmTy/YoVA==
ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=microsoft.com; 
	s=arcselector9901;
	h=From:Date:Subject:Message-ID:Content-Type:MIME-Version:X-MS-Exchange-SenderADCheck;
	bh=DQu/DtjXnfqXcv34HVwF6+vtPSJjxz3zlOOFWT8m1JA=;
	b=cSIsi/50/+IwtoLOOhaznziheXxapCG1k1nLbG49nmo4Pg1I7Yz7Urh4d52tojUaenGh7bL5lXScpMWdsZ9xB3mbXwyS9AztZki95CXy0uBiKfbJps4u2DFCucIt06jAjidEd1FvYkBLVQik98//hWfRctmK6TVjioB/K+mavFDH62kg//67CH4QglZ675W8QrR8Yhy/7n+sCJRxHXFeDq4oCQnhosf7kTNZoyvKJx89LK+vzQyGgTJnzYCqp66TA8KUgX9N9MdWOFEky6Q1Dv4Mon65ZiDXeFIkGRbFyj/p87XtbK2KAZFNTHao5BaX3OLfUAjsyontBlRAMDf8GQ==
ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; mx.microsoft.com
	1;spf=none;dmarc=none;dkim=none;arc=none
Received: from SG2APC01FT009.eop-APC01.prod.protection.outlook.com
	(10.152.250.57) by SG2APC01HT076.eop-APC01.prod.protection.outlook.com
	(10.152.251.173) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2,
	cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_CBC_SHA384) id 15.20.2136.14;
	Sat, 3 Aug 2019 00:51:13 +0000
Received: from PS2P216MB0179.KORP216.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM (10.152.250.57) by
	SG2APC01FT009.mail.protection.outlook.com (10.152.250.158) with
	Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2,
	cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id
	15.20.2136.14 via Frontend Transport; Sat, 3 Aug 2019 00:51:12 +0000
Received: from PS2P216MB0179.KORP216.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM
	([fe80::d894:e42b:554e:326d]) by PS2P216MB0179.KORP216.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM
	([fe80::d894:e42b:554e:326d%6]) with mapi id 15.20.2136.010;
	Sat, 3 Aug 2019 00:51:12 +0000
From: LORD HIS EXCELLENCY JAMES HRMH <willtech@live.com.au>
To: Ethan Heilman <eth3rs@gmail.com>, Bitcoin Dev
	<bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>,
	"Kenshiro []" <tensiam@hotmail.com>
Thread-Topic: [bitcoin-dev] Add a moving checkpoint to the Bitcoin protocol
Thread-Index: AQHVR5sdyaW9NUkjL067/8euo+yr/KbkwSWAgAAJxaeAAAS0t4AC+h2AgAAG9aGAAMoOKw==
Date: Sat, 3 Aug 2019 00:51:12 +0000
Message-ID: <PS2P216MB0179F9419B116F333EBF10799DD80@PS2P216MB0179.KORP216.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM>
References: <DB6PR10MB1832329BC8D151DC18F1E6CEA6DF0@DB6PR10MB1832.EURPRD10.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM>
	<28454621.Lge63Ifvux@dprfs-d5766>
	<DB6PR10MB1832F1E966CD83BC662985BDA6DF0@DB6PR10MB1832.EURPRD10.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM>
	<DB6PR10MB183271245AAE84FB9AC96474A6DF0@DB6PR10MB1832.EURPRD10.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM>,
	<CAEM=y+UCdW2__nmQhWuL2FYvL6WKdBsF31WDFZUSdXPvgM2bvg@mail.gmail.com>,
	<DB6PR10MB1832110D67FB7FBD1AF5E3EDA6D90@DB6PR10MB1832.EURPRD10.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM>
In-Reply-To: <DB6PR10MB1832110D67FB7FBD1AF5E3EDA6D90@DB6PR10MB1832.EURPRD10.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM>
Accept-Language: en-AU, en-US
Content-Language: en-AU
X-MS-Has-Attach: 
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: 
x-incomingtopheadermarker: OriginalChecksum:05B409AB4AD00F070B7F38B8C7733C240E2EC8C4A7C98D2AEC287E9DBDF7D95E;
	UpperCasedChecksum:AD71AA0482EB2B56B0326878A8A4D118CC0231BF2493DB8E06A2021745D8CE79;
	SizeAsReceived:7289; Count:43
x-ms-exchange-messagesentrepresentingtype: 1
x-tmn: [R9difbMTtjzBmwG8kHBh0I0vB0WZFM1N]
x-ms-publictraffictype: Email
x-incomingheadercount: 43
x-eopattributedmessage: 0
x-ms-exchange-slblob-mailprops: =?iso-8859-1?Q?h70CqCTTlEHTkraj2UDLx0aqoBzdZXyqddGDHiO5KyPRT3f1wkjspJ+pmn?=
	=?iso-8859-1?Q?b+Oehxfqeibalt10MvbvQbGsrgNaSSMOM4ExuBFGqBHwDJDMcCoKqsaidH?=
	=?iso-8859-1?Q?06UytifyejimCIfrMINlsed6IG/9lKVT/jlxg1Bbn7IS42z5o7oUM3tUV4?=
	=?iso-8859-1?Q?D9Vk4YolUJYNlPNaUWnpNLmxcnDATQjd/SIGpljCndj1ry4L9tJGqEpKtC?=
	=?iso-8859-1?Q?sL8bwN4xfwstMh2BhuJZEB8WkQJWbuLPDx8mwlXThviQu0/lvkPdLQCgww?=
	=?iso-8859-1?Q?YyOE9Y0ohVXgQ1x5vPQCFIggScvT97YECMeGxtH3sk9t+8gkR8FG9Zro33?=
	=?iso-8859-1?Q?SZeW6myoWEtkCiMBxK6r+GXdvV3yoAx6MaNZNpCwckv+AqXrzeMEzTQvss?=
	=?iso-8859-1?Q?TdgBghmlkvMvs05pAdC4TtwNpb2Pot4dYn78idg+kTjjJPOmy9epjeFHqD?=
	=?iso-8859-1?Q?tYUZkJ8ZEmkU6aMcfc41J/2a2xAF//GIW1rDrSZGsMjkCuuJsIVf0gAL0g?=
	=?iso-8859-1?Q?Y4lfm2TZQ6xjhXJu0kxhHhKr7wr0F6dZLFeFkdQjzVacW+SWF76XXg5KsQ?=
	=?iso-8859-1?Q?w8XnQtuPv4+xUjUpE9NqJua4Sm/LhV5CWc8xG2kYR62smi7+5rO9Z10ijw?=
	=?iso-8859-1?Q?6Fb1cSWqwVwWPXrgoQjg9sEWl4tliGKMfZ/+suYqPM83ERn2fACsc6OdWh?=
	=?iso-8859-1?Q?5+/KC/mucwXk6vXOJyyJqoD2ldvi6k3Kr4yKOFWPUDoFMeVeBkji9CNPb3?=
	=?iso-8859-1?Q?e1Nl4ATBsRb9Q8qJIj6DBjb9HKZdPshlmGZ5NkuPsWOcddiTkjVcxyYdh1?=
	=?iso-8859-1?Q?dt8/LnqgbTVe9mRwqxJB04cwYlvbgQZVlEv9WtTXkgPm43AAhhrtQ6FFRO?=
	=?iso-8859-1?Q?iqnxJ1A8zS8Qg4hgmr9p6shNzxYOJTwB/y3gnE0WnVcDuwuWCNf5bnZwEE?=
	=?iso-8859-1?Q?whsiRPf1P6EJ9Uu3S0HBiQzsx0SA5xDX7vSQnJVAiMDqlHWGYtkbLvsVz+?=
	=?iso-8859-1?Q?T3Beans/yFC52+bz+t7KVxiCHSrJdONRMBNsl1wJEmPA05Mjxl9pbFnV4S?=
	=?iso-8859-1?Q?gzwHgk4cbodDYtdEy18IElPs6o2HhI4L+fVYl6ocpb+Y?=
x-microsoft-antispam: BCL:0; PCL:0;
	RULEID:(2390118)(5050001)(7020095)(20181119110)(201702061078)(5061506573)(5061507331)(1603103135)(2017031320274)(201702181274)(2017031322404)(2017031323274)(2017031324274)(1601125500)(1603101475)(1701031045);
	SRVR:SG2APC01HT076; 
x-ms-traffictypediagnostic: SG2APC01HT076:
x-ms-exchange-purlcount: 2
x-microsoft-antispam-message-info: wgOXK4+QKbyXQYkRkrNaG01Mtymt9GJ9bmEdOR51woCK8JCpsToDL8Z1KPdUtkH6D0CI9BY1BeN7SOgZrIwJlySfj1Qlwa791DD14SBc/dN2li+Q9F1rtCsS5e1Ih7q9U+k7qtRd6jxgJD2KUWl/LHrnEl//lE2z1fhKKAeVdD9oQK6UgSYrv5FXhBU3lX7w
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
	boundary="_000_PS2P216MB0179F9419B116F333EBF10799DD80PS2P216MB0179KORP_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-OriginatorOrg: outlook.com
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-RMS-PersistedConsumerOrg: 00000000-0000-0000-0000-000000000000
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-Network-Message-Id: 21002fa3-0fe9-48ef-1837-08d717acaeb3
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-rms-persistedconsumerorg: 00000000-0000-0000-0000-000000000000
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-originalarrivaltime: 03 Aug 2019 00:51:12.8251 (UTC)
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-fromentityheader: Internet
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-id: 84df9e7f-e9f6-40af-b435-aaaaaaaaaaaa
X-MS-Exchange-Transport-CrossTenantHeadersStamped: SG2APC01HT076
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,HTML_MESSAGE,
	RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE 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: Sat, 03 Aug 2019 02:25:17 +0000
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Add a moving checkpoint to the Bitcoin protocol
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: Sat, 03 Aug 2019 00:51:19 -0000

--_000_PS2P216MB0179F9419B116F333EBF10799DD80PS2P216MB0179KORP_
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

I have but one point to make in a brief catch-up read over.

With the current protocol the fix to a network split is simple, the longest=
 chain win. But with the moving checkpoint I'm proposing we have a problem =
if both chains began to differ more than N blocks ago, the forks are perman=
ent. So we need an additional rule to ignore the moving checkpoint, a limit=
 of X blocks:

It is not to be considered the longest chain, it is to be considered the lo=
ngest chain with the most proof of work.

Regards,
LORD HIS EXCELLENCY JAMES HRMH
<https://earn.com/willtech>


________________________________
From: bitcoin-dev-bounces@lists.linuxfoundation.org <bitcoin-dev-bounces@li=
sts.linuxfoundation.org> on behalf of Kenshiro [] via bitcoin-dev <bitcoin-=
dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
Sent: Friday, 2 August 2019 11:08 PM
To: Ethan Heilman <eth3rs@gmail.com>; Bitcoin Dev <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxf=
oundation.org>
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Add a moving checkpoint to the Bitcoin protocol

Hi all,

Very good points. I did some clarifications in a private conversation, the =
new rule is making the moving checkpoint valid only if the difference in bl=
ocks between the main chain and the new fork is smaller than X blocks, like=
 for example 3 days of blocks, so after a long network split everyone can f=
inally follow the longest chain:

With the current protocol the fix to a network split is simple, the longest=
 chain win. But with the moving checkpoint I'm proposing we have a problem =
if both chains began to differ more than N blocks ago, the forks are perman=
ent. So we need an additional rule to ignore the moving checkpoint, a limit=
 of X blocks:

If a node sees a fork longer than his main chain, and the fork has at least=
 X blocks more than the main chain, then the node ignore the moving checkpo=
int rule, and it follows the fork, the longest chain.

So as an example, the moving checkpoint could be 24 hours of blocks, and th=
e limit of X blocks, the blocks of 3 days.

So we have 2 possible situations to consider:

- 51% attack:  the blocks older than 24 hours are protected against a histo=
ry rewrite during at least 3 days, in that time developers could release an=
 emergency release with another mining algorithm to stop the attack.

- Network split: if the network split is older than N blocks, we have 2 per=
manent forks (or chains), but in 3 days (or more) the blockchain heights wi=
ll differ in more than X blocks (the blocks of 3 days) because there will b=
e more miners in one chain than in the other so finally the loser chain wil=
l be abandoned and everyone will follow the longest chain.

It could be even more conservative, like 48 hours for the moving checkpoint=
 and a block limit of 7 days of blocks.

Regards,



________________________________
From: Ethan Heilman <eth3rs@gmail.com>
Sent: Friday, August 2, 2019 14:19
To: Kenshiro [] <tensiam@hotmail.com>; Bitcoin Dev <bitcoin-dev@lists.linux=
foundation.org>
Cc: Alistair Mann <al@pectw.net>
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Add a moving checkpoint to the Bitcoin protocol

Attack 1:
I partition (i.e. eclipse) a bunch of nodes from the network this partition=
 contains no mining power . I then mine 145 blocks for this partition. I do=
n't even need 51% of the mining power because I'm not competing with any ot=
her miners. Under this rule this partition will hardfork from the network p=
ermanently. Under current rules this partition will be able to rejoin the n=
etwork as the least weight chain will be orphaned.

Attack 2:
I pre-mine 145 blocks. A node goes offline for 24 hours, when it rejoins I =
feed it 145 blocks which fork off from the consensus chain. I have 24+24 ho=
urs to mine these 145 blocks so I should be able to do this with 25% of the=
 current hash rate at the time the node went offline. Under your rule each =
of these offline-->online nodes I attack this way will hardfork themselves =
from the rest of the network.

I believe a moving-checkpoint rule as describe above would make Bitcoin mor=
e vulnerable to 51% attacks.

A safer rule would be if a node detects a fork with both sides of the split=
 having  length > 144 blocks, it halts and requests user intervention to de=
termine which chain to follow.  I don't think 144 blocks is a great number =
to use here as 24 hours is very short. I suspect you could improve the secu=
rity of the rule by making the number of blocks a fork most reach to halt t=
he network proportional to the difference in time between the timestamp in =
the block prior to the fork and the current time. I am **NOT** proposing Bi=
tcoin adopt such a rule.

NXT has a fundamentally different security model as it uses Proof-of-stake =
rather than Proof-of-Work.

On Wed, Jul 31, 2019 at 2:37 PM Kenshiro [] via bitcoin-dev <bitcoin-dev@li=
sts.linuxfoundation.org<mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>> wrot=
e:
P.S.: To be clearer, in this example I set an N value of 144 blocks, which =
is approximately 24 hours.

________________________________
From: Kenshiro [] <tensiam@hotmail.com<mailto:tensiam@hotmail.com>>
Sent: Wednesday, July 31, 2019 16:40
To: Alistair Mann <al@pectw.net<mailto:al@pectw.net>>; Bitcoin Protocol Dis=
cussion <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org<mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.lin=
uxfoundation.org>>
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Add a moving checkpoint to the Bitcoin protocol

>>> How would a (potentially, state-sponsored) netsplit lasting longer than=
 N be
handled?

It would be detected by the community much before reaching the reorg limit =
of N blocks (it's 24 hours) so nodes could stop until the netsplit is fixed=
.

In the extreme case no one notice the network split during more than N bloc=
ks (24 hours) and there are 2 permanent forks longer than N, nodes from one=
 branch could delete their local history so they would join the other branc=
h.

Regards,


________________________________
From: Alistair Mann <al@pectw.net<mailto:al@pectw.net>>
Sent: Wednesday, July 31, 2019 15:59
To: Kenshiro [] <tensiam@hotmail.com<mailto:tensiam@hotmail.com>>; Bitcoin =
Protocol Discussion <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org<mailto:bitcoin-d=
ev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>>
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Add a moving checkpoint to the Bitcoin protocol

On Wednesday 31 Jul 2019 12:28:58 Kenshiro [] via bitcoin-dev wrote:

> I would like to propose that a "moving checkpoint" is added to the Bitcoi=
n
> protocol. It's a very simple rule already implemented in NXT coin:
>
> - A node will ignore any new block under nodeBlockHeight - N, so the
> blockchain becomes truly immutable after N blocks, even during a 51% atta=
ck
> which thanks to the moving checkpoint can't rewrite history older than th=
e
> last N blocks.

How would a (potentially, state-sponsored) netsplit lasting longer than N b=
e
handled?
--
Alistair Mann

_______________________________________________
bitcoin-dev mailing list
bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org<mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundat=
ion.org>
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev

--_000_PS2P216MB0179F9419B116F333EBF10799DD80PS2P216MB0179KORP_
Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv=3D"Content-Type" content=3D"text/html; charset=3Diso-8859-=
1">
<style type=3D"text/css" style=3D"display:none;"> P {margin-top:0;margin-bo=
ttom:0;} </style>
</head>
<body dir=3D"ltr">
<div style=3D"font-family: Calibri, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 12pt;=
 color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">
I have but one point to make in a brief catch-up read over.<br>
</div>
<blockquote style=3D"margin-top: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px;">
<div style=3D"font-family: Calibri, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 12pt;=
 color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">
<br>
</div>
<div style=3D"font-family: Calibri, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 12pt;=
 color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">
<b>With the current protocol the fix to a network split is simple, the long=
est chain win.</b> But with the moving checkpoint I'm proposing we have a p=
roblem if both chains began to differ more than N blocks ago, the forks are=
 permanent. So we need an additional
 rule to ignore the moving checkpoint, a limit of X blocks:<br>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div style=3D"font-family: Calibri, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 12pt;=
 color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">
&nbsp;<br>
</div>
<div style=3D"font-family: Calibri, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 12pt;=
 color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">
It is not to be considered the longest chain, it is to be considered the lo=
ngest chain
<u>with the most proof of work</u>.<br>
</div>
<div style=3D"font-family: Calibri, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 12pt;=
 color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">
<br>
</div>
<div id=3D"Signature">
<div></div>
<div></div>
<div style=3D"font-family:Calibri,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size:12pt; col=
or:rgb(0,0,0)">
</div>
<div style=3D"font-family:Calibri,Helvetica,sans-serif,serif,EmojiFont; fon=
t-size:12pt">
Regards,</div>
<div style=3D"font-family:Calibri,Helvetica,sans-serif,serif,EmojiFont; fon=
t-size:12pt">
LORD HIS EXCELLENCY JAMES HRMH</div>
<div style=3D"font-family:Calibri,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size:12pt; col=
or:rgb(0,0,0)">
<div><a href=3D"https://earn.com/willtech" title=3D"https://earn.com/willte=
ch"></a></div>
<div><br>
</div>
</div>
<div>
<div id=3D"appendonsend"></div>
<div style=3D"font-family:Calibri,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size:12pt; col=
or:rgb(0,0,0)">
<br>
</div>
<hr tabindex=3D"-1" style=3D"display:inline-block; width:98%">
<div id=3D"divRplyFwdMsg" dir=3D"ltr"><font style=3D"font-size:11pt" face=
=3D"Calibri, sans-serif" color=3D"#000000"><b>From:</b> bitcoin-dev-bounces=
@lists.linuxfoundation.org &lt;bitcoin-dev-bounces@lists.linuxfoundation.or=
g&gt; on behalf of Kenshiro [] via bitcoin-dev &lt;bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxf=
oundation.org&gt;<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Friday, 2 August 2019 11:08 PM<br>
<b>To:</b> Ethan Heilman &lt;eth3rs@gmail.com&gt;; Bitcoin Dev &lt;bitcoin-=
dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org&gt;<br>
<b>Subject:</b> Re: [bitcoin-dev] Add a moving checkpoint to the Bitcoin pr=
otocol</font>
<div>&nbsp;</div>
</div>
<div dir=3D"ltr">
<div style=3D"font-family:Calibri,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size:12pt; col=
or:rgb(0,0,0)">
Hi all,</div>
<div style=3D"font-family:Calibri,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size:12pt; col=
or:rgb(0,0,0)">
<br>
</div>
<div style=3D"font-family:Calibri,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size:12pt; col=
or:rgb(0,0,0)">
Very good points. I did some clarifications in a private conversation, the =
new rule is making the moving checkpoint valid only if the difference in bl=
ocks between the main chain and the new fork is smaller than X blocks, like=
 for example 3 days of blocks, so
 after a long network split everyone can finally follow the longest chain:<=
/div>
<div style=3D"font-family:Calibri,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size:12pt; col=
or:rgb(0,0,0)">
<br>
</div>
<div style=3D"font-family:Calibri,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size:12pt; col=
or:rgb(0,0,0)">
With the current protocol the fix to a network split is simple, the longest=
 chain win. But with the moving checkpoint I'm proposing we have a problem =
if both chains began to differ more than N blocks ago, the forks are perman=
ent. So we need an additional rule
 to ignore the moving checkpoint, a limit of X blocks:<br>
</div>
<div style=3D"font-family:Calibri,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size:12pt; col=
or:rgb(0,0,0)">
<div><br>
</div>
<div>If a node sees a fork longer than his main chain, and the fork has at =
least X blocks more than the main chain, then the node ignore the moving ch=
eckpoint rule, and it follows the fork, the longest chain.<br>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>So as an example, the moving checkpoint could be 24 hours of blocks, a=
nd the limit of X blocks, the blocks of 3 days.
<br>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>So we have 2 possible situations to consider:<br>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>- 51% attack: &nbsp;the blocks older than 24 hours are protected again=
st a history rewrite during at least 3 days, in that time developers could =
release an emergency release with another mining algorithm to stop the atta=
ck.<br>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<span>- Network split: if the network split is older than N blocks, we have=
 2 permanent forks (or chains), but in 3 days (or more) the blockchain heig=
hts will differ in more than X blocks (the blocks of 3 days) because there =
will be more miners in one chain
 than in the other so finally the loser chain will be abandoned and everyon=
e will follow the longest chain.</span><br>
</div>
<div style=3D"font-family:Calibri,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size:12pt; col=
or:rgb(0,0,0)">
<span><br>
</span></div>
<div style=3D"font-family:Calibri,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size:12pt; col=
or:rgb(0,0,0)">
It could be even more conservative, like 48 hours for the moving checkpoint=
 and a block limit of 7 days of blocks.</div>
<div style=3D"font-family:Calibri,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size:12pt; col=
or:rgb(0,0,0)">
<br>
</div>
<div style=3D"font-family:Calibri,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size:12pt; col=
or:rgb(0,0,0)">
Regards,</div>
<div style=3D"font-family:Calibri,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size:12pt; col=
or:rgb(0,0,0)">
<br>
</div>
<div style=3D"font-family:Calibri,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size:12pt; col=
or:rgb(0,0,0)">
<br>
</div>
<div>
<div id=3D"x_appendonsend"></div>
<div style=3D"font-family:Calibri,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size:12pt; col=
or:rgb(0,0,0)">
<br>
</div>
<hr tabindex=3D"-1" style=3D"display:inline-block; width:98%">
<div id=3D"x_divRplyFwdMsg" dir=3D"ltr"><font style=3D"font-size:11pt" face=
=3D"Calibri, sans-serif" color=3D"#000000"><b>From:</b> Ethan Heilman &lt;e=
th3rs@gmail.com&gt;<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Friday, August 2, 2019 14:19<br>
<b>To:</b> Kenshiro [] &lt;tensiam@hotmail.com&gt;; Bitcoin Dev &lt;bitcoin=
-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org&gt;<br>
<b>Cc:</b> Alistair Mann &lt;al@pectw.net&gt;<br>
<b>Subject:</b> Re: [bitcoin-dev] Add a moving checkpoint to the Bitcoin pr=
otocol</font>
<div>&nbsp;</div>
</div>
<div>
<div dir=3D"auto">
<div dir=3D"ltr">Attack 1:<br>
I partition (i.e. eclipse) a bunch of nodes from the network this partition=
 contains no mining power . I then mine 145 blocks for this partition. I do=
n't even need 51% of the mining power because I'm not competing with any ot=
her miners. Under this rule this
 partition will hardfork from the network permanently. Under current rules =
this partition will be able to rejoin the network as the least weight chain=
 will be orphaned.<br>
<br>
Attack 2:<br>
I pre-mine 145 blocks. A node goes offline for 24 hours, when it rejoins I =
feed it 145 blocks which fork off from the consensus chain. I have 24&#43;2=
4 hours to mine these 145 blocks so I should be able to do this with 25% of=
 the current hash rate at the time the
 node went offline. Under your rule each of these offline--&gt;online nodes=
 I attack this way will hardfork themselves from the rest of the network.<b=
r>
<br>
I believe a moving-checkpoint rule as describe above would make Bitcoin mor=
e vulnerable to 51% attacks.<br>
<br>
A safer rule would be if a node detects a fork with both sides of the split=
 having&nbsp; length &gt; 144 blocks, it halts and requests user interventi=
on to determine which chain to follow.&nbsp; I don't think 144 blocks is a =
great number to use here as 24 hours is very
 short. I suspect you could improve the security of the rule by making the =
number of blocks a fork most reach to halt the network proportional to the =
difference in time between the timestamp in the block prior to the fork and=
 the current time. I am **NOT**
 proposing Bitcoin adopt such a rule.<br>
<br>
NXT has a fundamentally different security model as it uses Proof-of-stake =
rather than Proof-of-Work.</div>
</div>
<br>
<div class=3D"x_x_gmail_quote">
<div dir=3D"ltr" class=3D"x_x_gmail_attr">On Wed, Jul 31, 2019 at 2:37 PM K=
enshiro [] via bitcoin-dev &lt;<a href=3D"mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfou=
ndation.org" target=3D"_blank" rel=3D"noreferrer">bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfo=
undation.org</a>&gt; wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote class=3D"x_x_gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex; bo=
rder-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204); padding-left:1ex">
<div dir=3D"ltr">
<div style=3D"font-family:Calibri,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size:12pt; col=
or:rgb(0,0,0)">
P.S.: To be clearer, in this example I set an N value of 144 blocks, which =
is approximately 24 hours.</div>
<div>
<div id=3D"x_x_m_-1010116091299868493gmail-m_6888503219858923550appendonsen=
d"></div>
<div style=3D"font-family:Calibri,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size:12pt; col=
or:rgb(0,0,0)">
<br>
</div>
<hr style=3D"display:inline-block; width:98%">
<div id=3D"x_x_m_-1010116091299868493gmail-m_6888503219858923550divRplyFwdM=
sg" dir=3D"ltr">
<font style=3D"font-size:11pt" face=3D"Calibri, sans-serif" color=3D"#00000=
0"><b>From:</b> Kenshiro [] &lt;<a href=3D"mailto:tensiam@hotmail.com" targ=
et=3D"_blank" rel=3D"noreferrer">tensiam@hotmail.com</a>&gt;<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Wednesday, July 31, 2019 16:40<br>
<b>To:</b> Alistair Mann &lt;<a href=3D"mailto:al@pectw.net" target=3D"_bla=
nk" rel=3D"noreferrer">al@pectw.net</a>&gt;; Bitcoin Protocol Discussion &l=
t;<a href=3D"mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org" target=3D"_blank=
" rel=3D"noreferrer">bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org</a>&gt;<br>
<b>Subject:</b> Re: [bitcoin-dev] Add a moving checkpoint to the Bitcoin pr=
otocol</font>
<div>&nbsp;</div>
</div>
<div dir=3D"ltr">
<div style=3D"font-family:Calibri,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size:12pt; col=
or:rgb(0,0,0)">
&gt;&gt;&gt;&nbsp;<span>How would a (potentially, state-sponsored) netsplit=
 lasting longer than N be
<br>
</span><span>handled? &nbsp;</span></div>
<div style=3D"font-family:Calibri,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size:12pt; col=
or:rgb(0,0,0)">
<span><br>
</span></div>
<div style=3D"font-family:Calibri,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size:12pt; col=
or:rgb(0,0,0)">
<span>It would be detected by the community much before reaching the reorg =
limit of N blocks (it's 24 hours) so nodes could stop until the netsplit is=
 fixed.&nbsp;</span></div>
<div style=3D"font-family:Calibri,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size:12pt; col=
or:rgb(0,0,0)">
<span><br>
</span></div>
<div style=3D"font-family:Calibri,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size:12pt; col=
or:rgb(0,0,0)">
<span>In the extreme case no one notice the network split during more than =
N blocks (24 hours) and there are 2 permanent forks longer than N, n</span>=
odes from one branch could delete their local history so they would join th=
e other branch.</div>
<div style=3D"font-family:Calibri,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size:12pt; col=
or:rgb(0,0,0)">
<br>
</div>
<div style=3D"font-family:Calibri,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size:12pt; col=
or:rgb(0,0,0)">
Regards,</div>
<div style=3D"font-family:Calibri,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size:12pt; col=
or:rgb(0,0,0)">
<br>
</div>
<div>
<div id=3D"x_x_m_-1010116091299868493gmail-m_6888503219858923550x_appendons=
end"></div>
<div style=3D"font-family:Calibri,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size:12pt; col=
or:rgb(0,0,0)">
<br>
</div>
<hr style=3D"display:inline-block; width:98%">
<div id=3D"x_x_m_-1010116091299868493gmail-m_6888503219858923550x_divRplyFw=
dMsg" dir=3D"ltr">
<font style=3D"font-size:11pt" face=3D"Calibri, sans-serif" color=3D"#00000=
0"><b>From:</b> Alistair Mann &lt;<a href=3D"mailto:al@pectw.net" target=3D=
"_blank" rel=3D"noreferrer">al@pectw.net</a>&gt;<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Wednesday, July 31, 2019 15:59<br>
<b>To:</b> Kenshiro [] &lt;<a href=3D"mailto:tensiam@hotmail.com" target=3D=
"_blank" rel=3D"noreferrer">tensiam@hotmail.com</a>&gt;; Bitcoin Protocol D=
iscussion &lt;<a href=3D"mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org" targ=
et=3D"_blank" rel=3D"noreferrer">bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org</a>&=
gt;<br>
<b>Subject:</b> Re: [bitcoin-dev] Add a moving checkpoint to the Bitcoin pr=
otocol</font>
<div>&nbsp;</div>
</div>
<div class=3D"x_x_m_-1010116091299868493gmail-m_6888503219858923550x_BodyFr=
agment">
<font size=3D"2"><span style=3D"font-size:11pt">
<div class=3D"x_x_m_-1010116091299868493gmail-m_6888503219858923550x_PlainT=
ext">On Wednesday 31 Jul 2019 12:28:58 Kenshiro [] via bitcoin-dev wrote:<b=
r>
<br>
&gt; I would like to propose that a &quot;moving checkpoint&quot; is added =
to the Bitcoin<br>
&gt; protocol. It's a very simple rule already implemented in NXT coin:<br>
&gt; <br>
&gt; - A node will ignore any new block under nodeBlockHeight - N, so the<b=
r>
&gt; blockchain becomes truly immutable after N blocks, even during a 51% a=
ttack<br>
&gt; which thanks to the moving checkpoint can't rewrite history older than=
 the<br>
&gt; last N blocks.<br>
<br>
How would a (potentially, state-sponsored) netsplit lasting longer than N b=
e <br>
handled?&nbsp; <br>
-- <br>
Alistair Mann<br>
<br>
</div>
</span></font></div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
_______________________________________________<br>
bitcoin-dev mailing list<br>
<a href=3D"mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org" target=3D"_blank" =
rel=3D"noreferrer">bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org</a><br>
<a href=3D"https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev" =
rel=3D"noreferrer noreferrer" target=3D"_blank">https://lists.linuxfoundati=
on.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev</a><br>
</blockquote>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</body>
</html>

--_000_PS2P216MB0179F9419B116F333EBF10799DD80PS2P216MB0179KORP_--