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
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
184
185
186
187
188
189
190
191
192
|
Received: from sog-mx-4.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.194]
helo=mx.sourceforge.net)
by sfs-ml-4.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76)
(envelope-from <ryacko@gmail.com>) id 1VvH9x-0007KW-0Y
for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Tue, 24 Dec 2013 01:51:49 +0000
Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-4.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of gmail.com
designates 74.125.82.182 as permitted sender)
client-ip=74.125.82.182; envelope-from=ryacko@gmail.com;
helo=mail-we0-f182.google.com;
Received: from mail-we0-f182.google.com ([74.125.82.182])
by sog-mx-4.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128)
(Exim 4.76) id 1VvH9v-0004fL-JZ
for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Tue, 24 Dec 2013 01:51:48 +0000
Received: by mail-we0-f182.google.com with SMTP id q59so5581158wes.27
for <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>;
Mon, 23 Dec 2013 17:51:41 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.180.106.200 with SMTP id gw8mr20784212wib.50.1387849901388;
Mon, 23 Dec 2013 17:51:41 -0800 (PST)
Sender: ryacko@gmail.com
Received: by 10.194.188.6 with HTTP; Mon, 23 Dec 2013 17:51:41 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <52B7AC86.9010808@monetize.io>
References: <CAO7N=i1_ZyGBAsOGdCvPwJNhARbe-MuWzi9MYLsa3WS_PO25hg@mail.gmail.com>
<52B7AC86.9010808@monetize.io>
Date: Mon, 23 Dec 2013 17:51:41 -0800
X-Google-Sender-Auth: AwFAj7YbiRRtBTEGoCOasWfcB0Y
Message-ID: <CAO7N=i1avBNy9wfQSAyDH19ywJ__C_A9XSVBbufa42=Lu4MjRg@mail.gmail.com>
From: Ryan Carboni <ryan.jc.pc@gmail.com>
To: Mark Friedenbach <mark@monetize.io>,
bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=e89a8f234b555fbcf304ee3dfcd1
X-Spam-Score: -0.6 (/)
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
(ryacko[at]gmail.com)
-0.0 SPF_PASS SPF: sender matches SPF record
0.0 URIBL_BLOCKED ADMINISTRATOR NOTICE: The query to URIBL was blocked.
See
http://wiki.apache.org/spamassassin/DnsBlocklists#dnsbl-block
for more information. [URIs: enigmail.net]
1.0 HTML_MESSAGE BODY: HTML included in message
-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: 1VvH9v-0004fL-JZ
Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] Bitcoin difficulty sanity check suggestion
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: Tue, 24 Dec 2013 01:51:49 -0000
--e89a8f234b555fbcf304ee3dfcd1
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
I think you misunderstood my statement. If time > 3 days, and after 4
blocks have been mined, then difficulty would be reset.
In theory, one would have to isolate roughly one percent of the Bitcoin
network's hashing power to do so. Which would indicate an attack by a state
actor as opposed to anything else. Arguably, the safest way to run Bitcoin
is through a proprietary dial-up network.
On Sun, Dec 22, 2013 at 7:22 PM, Mark Friedenbach <mark@monetize.io> wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> Ryan, these sort of adjustments introduce security risks. If you were
> isolated from the main chain by a low-hashpower attacker, how would
> you know? They'd need just three days without you noticing that
> network block generation has stalled - maybe they wait for a long
> weekend - then after that the block rate is normal but completely
> controlled by the attacker (and isolated from mainnet).
>
> There are fast acting alternative difficulty adjustment algorithms
> being explored by some alts, such as the 9-block interval, 144-block
> window, Parks-McClellan FIR filter used by Freicoin to recover from
> just such a mining bubble. If it were to happen to bitcoin, there
> would be sophisticated alternative to turn to, and enough time to make
> the change.
>
> On 12/22/2013 07:10 PM, Ryan Carboni wrote:
> > I think Bitcoin should have a sanity check: after three days if
> > only four blocks have been mined, difficulty should be adjusted
> > downwards.
> >
> > This might become important in the near future. I project a
> > Bitcoin mining bubble.
> >
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: GnuPG v1.4.14 (GNU/Linux)
> Comment: GPGTools - http://gpgtools.org
> Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/
>
> iQIcBAEBAgAGBQJSt6yGAAoJEAdzVfsmodw4SegQAIJAWW0OgSjediSWq+EpkReS
> qMvC2Y9dmVHtowYLdJVcgwFWbpU8RhA6ApQ1Ks2XF4t0hFCObYDecG6Nl3OIaLfb
> snz24v8ymdxYXKNtzHHUP0VBgsaoRghIpkbf7JMUXC22sxPoPOXFt5RevLgJHrvc
> oGFZSIcEcGgwhwZ745CgFZLwaKuSmg5+wFFcrjIihlHKJOl47Z7rzeqnD6mf2Oi3
> hDpRuVbuhlGMliYcmhk1E6oV0in2R4Purw1WtoY8C9DxrSP2za7W1oeCkmlFfJZS
> to6SzRj7nEIl0LFaPGsIdBrRdDHfvu6eP2OecI+GNLEwLY6qE5v5fkh47mcDkrN0
> 02PmepoX5PRzBqp4sx8WaFKuRbmTRRr3E4i9PGoyzTckkZzq+zFmb1y5fwOy17hE
> C+nP+DyuaPzjypjdo6V+/oGzUKtuKPtqcB1vurbm+WBl5C1jWosAXv5pR87mdCUJ
> +0e14wPra5blV6yBVqX7yx+2heDGymPKfHJ8i76Dtix7XVOJWKVY4OpIxO7YrYv8
> IKcIswoKhZdSDOJLcjm4Qp4hrzgCHAHWx6vN71r5r2T6zaJTOvp98GS04Yy7VGAr
> j38hojcwvJC1ahER3LV/vC0cqO+fxrvY8Q9rW2cUxCnzxzjjG0+Z/gjW8uh73lXN
> DOTF7jpt0ZmCm7uhG9z7
> =5Q2H
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
>
--e89a8f234b555fbcf304ee3dfcd1
Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
<div dir=3D"ltr">I think you misunderstood my statement. If time > 3 day=
s, and after 4 blocks have been mined, then difficulty would be reset.<div>=
<br></div><div>In theory, one would have to isolate roughly one percent of =
the Bitcoin network's hashing power to do so. Which would indicate an a=
ttack by a state actor as opposed to anything else. Arguably, the safest wa=
y to run Bitcoin is through a proprietary dial-up network.</div>
</div><div class=3D"gmail_extra"><br><br><div class=3D"gmail_quote">On Sun,=
Dec 22, 2013 at 7:22 PM, Mark Friedenbach <span dir=3D"ltr"><<a href=3D=
"mailto:mark@monetize.io" target=3D"_blank">mark@monetize.io</a>></span>=
wrote:<br>
<blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1p=
x #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----<br>
Hash: SHA1<br>
<br>
Ryan, these sort of adjustments introduce security risks. If you were<br>
isolated from the main chain by a low-hashpower attacker, how would<br>
you know? They'd need just three days without you noticing that<br>
network block generation has stalled - maybe they wait for a long<br>
weekend - then after that the block rate is normal but completely<br>
controlled by the attacker (and isolated from mainnet).<br>
<br>
There are fast acting alternative difficulty adjustment algorithms<br>
being explored by some alts, such as the 9-block interval, 144-block<br>
window, Parks-McClellan FIR filter used by Freicoin to recover from<br>
just such a mining bubble. If it were to happen to bitcoin, there<br>
would be sophisticated alternative to turn to, and enough time to make<br>
the change.<br>
<div><div class=3D"h5"><br>
On 12/22/2013 07:10 PM, Ryan Carboni wrote:<br>
> I think Bitcoin should have a sanity check: after three days if<br>
> only four blocks have been mined, difficulty should be adjusted<br>
> downwards.<br>
><br>
> This might become important in the near future. I project a<br>
> Bitcoin mining bubble.<br>
><br>
</div></div>-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----<br>
Version: GnuPG v1.4.14 (GNU/Linux)<br>
Comment: GPGTools - <a href=3D"http://gpgtools.org" target=3D"_blank">http:=
//gpgtools.org</a><br>
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - <a href=3D"http://www.enigmail.net/=
" target=3D"_blank">http://www.enigmail.net/</a><br>
<br>
iQIcBAEBAgAGBQJSt6yGAAoJEAdzVfsmodw4SegQAIJAWW0OgSjediSWq+EpkReS<br>
qMvC2Y9dmVHtowYLdJVcgwFWbpU8RhA6ApQ1Ks2XF4t0hFCObYDecG6Nl3OIaLfb<br>
snz24v8ymdxYXKNtzHHUP0VBgsaoRghIpkbf7JMUXC22sxPoPOXFt5RevLgJHrvc<br>
oGFZSIcEcGgwhwZ745CgFZLwaKuSmg5+wFFcrjIihlHKJOl47Z7rzeqnD6mf2Oi3<br>
hDpRuVbuhlGMliYcmhk1E6oV0in2R4Purw1WtoY8C9DxrSP2za7W1oeCkmlFfJZS<br>
to6SzRj7nEIl0LFaPGsIdBrRdDHfvu6eP2OecI+GNLEwLY6qE5v5fkh47mcDkrN0<br>
02PmepoX5PRzBqp4sx8WaFKuRbmTRRr3E4i9PGoyzTckkZzq+zFmb1y5fwOy17hE<br>
C+nP+DyuaPzjypjdo6V+/oGzUKtuKPtqcB1vurbm+WBl5C1jWosAXv5pR87mdCUJ<br>
+0e14wPra5blV6yBVqX7yx+2heDGymPKfHJ8i76Dtix7XVOJWKVY4OpIxO7YrYv8<br>
IKcIswoKhZdSDOJLcjm4Qp4hrzgCHAHWx6vN71r5r2T6zaJTOvp98GS04Yy7VGAr<br>
j38hojcwvJC1ahER3LV/vC0cqO+fxrvY8Q9rW2cUxCnzxzjjG0+Z/gjW8uh73lXN<br>
DOTF7jpt0ZmCm7uhG9z7<br>
=3D5Q2H<br>
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----<br>
</blockquote></div><br></div>
--e89a8f234b555fbcf304ee3dfcd1--
|
