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
|
Return-Path: <cannon@cannon-ciota.info>
Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org
[172.17.192.35])
by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A4695B8A
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Fri, 14 Apr 2017 02:22:27 +0000 (UTC)
X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6
Received: from forward2.bravehost.com (forward2.bravehost.com [65.39.211.66])
by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 107F319A
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Fri, 14 Apr 2017 02:22:26 +0000 (UTC)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at bravehost.com
Received: from [10.137.4.20] (unknown [199.249.223.40])
(Authenticated sender: cannon@cannon-ciota.info)
by forward2.bravehost.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id D62DF210D;
Thu, 13 Apr 2017 19:22:23 -0700 (PDT)
To: =?UTF-8?Q?Emin_G=c3=bcn_Sirer?= <el33th4x0r@gmail.com>,
Bitcoin Dev <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
References: <5b9ba6c4-6d8f-9c0b-2420-2be6c30f87b5@cannon-ciota.info>
<CAPkFh0s-ZyLN06h+EpU2rfgs5TkTEPG+3FZyWSXusp-Z9XHasQ@mail.gmail.com>
From: CANNON <cannon@cannon-ciota.info>
Message-ID: <40cc105b-80ee-4848-0624-f4a8f1070173@cannon-ciota.info>
Date: Fri, 14 Apr 2017 02:22:18 +0000
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101
Icedove/45.6.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CAPkFh0s-ZyLN06h+EpU2rfgs5TkTEPG+3FZyWSXusp-Z9XHasQ@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,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, 14 Apr 2017 03:28:24 +0000
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Defending against empty or near empty blocks from
malicious miner takeover?
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: Fri, 14 Apr 2017 02:22:27 -0000
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA512
On 03/24/2017 04:27 PM, Emin Gün Sirer wrote:
> Because there's no consensus on the contents of the mempool, this approach
> is unsafe and will lead to forks. It also opens a new attack vector where
> people can time the flood of new transactions with the discovery of a block
> by a competitor, to orphan the block and to fork the chain.
>
I know this is a delayed reply.
Without intending to revive an older thread, my intentions are to clarify
what I have meant in my original post just in case anyone misinterprets
where I said
"For example would be something like this:
If block = (empty OR <%75 of mempool) THEN discard
This threshold just an example."
I should have clarified that with this idea blocks would not be rejected if
does not match what that nodes have in their mempool, because as you have said,
there is no consensus on the contents of mempool and the mempool will vary from
node to node.
Instead what I have meant is that with this idea, nodes would only reject blocks if
they are empty or less than a determined percentage when compared to what is in mempool.
While this specific defense proposal I posted may or may not be a good idea, was only
throwing this idea out there to create discussion on possible defenses against an empty
or near empty block attack.
- --
Cannon
PGP Fingerprint: 2BB5 15CD 66E7 4E28 45DC 6494 A5A2 2879 3F06 E832
Email: cannon@cannon-ciota.info
NOTICE: ALL EMAIL CORRESPONDENCE NOT SIGNED/ENCRYPTED WITH PGP SHOULD
BE CONSIDERED POTENTIALLY FORGED, AND NOT PRIVATE.
If this matters to you, use PGP.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----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=q+nx
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
|
