diff options
author | Gavin <gavinandresen@gmail.com> | 2015-05-13 09:24:04 -0400 |
---|---|---|
committer | bitcoindev <bitcoindev@gnusha.org> | 2015-05-13 13:24:16 +0000 |
commit | 985d4797eac8367537c71aacde2fd6ea95d60fa1 (patch) | |
tree | 3a861a8a71d8488cb6c761dac1ecb4981fa3d1b8 | |
parent | 9c46708ad86f6831e17c20cdf755f0ad777ce804 (diff) | |
download | pi-bitcoindev-985d4797eac8367537c71aacde2fd6ea95d60fa1.tar.gz pi-bitcoindev-985d4797eac8367537c71aacde2fd6ea95d60fa1.zip |
Re: [Bitcoin-development] Long-term mining incentives
-rw-r--r-- | c3/cdfa883fbff2a98bf5d72a0dad74e5835c20ba | 242 |
1 files changed, 242 insertions, 0 deletions
diff --git a/c3/cdfa883fbff2a98bf5d72a0dad74e5835c20ba b/c3/cdfa883fbff2a98bf5d72a0dad74e5835c20ba new file mode 100644 index 000000000..05fe4ce09 --- /dev/null +++ b/c3/cdfa883fbff2a98bf5d72a0dad74e5835c20ba @@ -0,0 +1,242 @@ +Received: from sog-mx-3.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.193] + helo=mx.sourceforge.net) + by sfs-ml-4.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76) + (envelope-from <gavinandresen@gmail.com>) id 1YsWe0-0003YI-En + for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; + Wed, 13 May 2015 13:24:16 +0000 +Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-3.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of gmail.com + designates 209.85.192.42 as permitted sender) + client-ip=209.85.192.42; envelope-from=gavinandresen@gmail.com; + helo=mail-qg0-f42.google.com; +Received: from mail-qg0-f42.google.com ([209.85.192.42]) + by sog-mx-3.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128) + (Exim 4.76) id 1YsWdx-0002Z8-7C + for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; + Wed, 13 May 2015 13:24:16 +0000 +Received: by qgeb100 with SMTP id b100so20995382qge.3 + for <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>; + Wed, 13 May 2015 06:24:07 -0700 (PDT) +X-Received: by 10.140.28.102 with SMTP id 93mr26365505qgy.78.1431523447797; + Wed, 13 May 2015 06:24:07 -0700 (PDT) +Received: from ?IPv6:2600:1000:b11c:b9df:2d87:d588:1c81:617a? + ([2600:1000:b11c:b9df:2d87:d588:1c81:617a]) + by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id 10sm15521129qhv.27.2015.05.13.06.24.06 + (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); + Wed, 13 May 2015 06:24:06 -0700 (PDT) +Content-Type: multipart/alternative; + boundary=Apple-Mail-1D350ADE-A483-4CFC-A151-4F92256CF5F9 +Mime-Version: 1.0 (1.0) +From: Gavin <gavinandresen@gmail.com> +X-Mailer: iPhone Mail (12F70) +In-Reply-To: <CAE28kUR-0ozFg6D4Es7RCm1pA5xaW-E1R_YSTRRTj3z4XXiWxw@mail.gmail.com> +Date: Wed, 13 May 2015 09:24:04 -0400 +Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit +Message-Id: <E6CE3531-5AFC-49ED-9041-A924B01966BC@gmail.com> +References: <5550D8BE.6070207@electrum.org> + <ce3d34c92efd1cf57326e4679550944e@national.shitposting.agency> + <CABsx9T1VgxEJWxrYTs+2hXGnGrSLGJ6mVcAexjXLvK7Vu+e3EA@mail.gmail.com> + <5551F376.4050008@electrum.org> + <CABsx9T1h7p3hDr7ty43uxsYs-oNRpndzg=dowST2tXtogxRm2g@mail.gmail.com> + <555210AF.3090705@electrum.org> + <CABsx9T3AxM3et7hgXx3+Rn3BvhQkF-Cn797sHcyztkMpD1UQmA@mail.gmail.com> + <55531E19.3090503@electrum.org> + <CAE-z3OXa8vk6Q1EBChoRYDOLKw--CXNXz4AokXCbVam_8LFFDg@mail.gmail.com> + <CAE28kURWFveC0B-WvFebMpGm1GY-8juxQ+UDpuYtOwVnbOgu-A@mail.gmail.com> + <CAE-z3OVBUu=6sqNc3RUJqFPuqhPdw1Ej0RZ-tSygoQ6LowhVXg@mail.gmail.com> + <CAE28kUR-0ozFg6D4Es7RCm1pA5xaW-E1R_YSTRRTj3z4XXiWxw@mail.gmail.com> +To: Alex Mizrahi <alex.mizrahi@gmail.com> +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 + (gavinandresen[at]gmail.com) + -0.0 SPF_PASS SPF: sender matches SPF record + 1.0 HTML_MESSAGE BODY: HTML included in message + 0.0 MIME_QP_LONG_LINE RAW: Quoted-printable line longer than 76 chars + -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: 1YsWdx-0002Z8-7C +Cc: Bitcoin Dev <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net> +Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] Long-term mining incentives +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: Wed, 13 May 2015 13:24:16 -0000 + + +--Apple-Mail-1D350ADE-A483-4CFC-A151-4F92256CF5F9 +Content-Type: text/plain; + charset=us-ascii +Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable + +Checkpoints will be replaced by compiled-in 'at THIS timestamp the main chai= +n had THIS much proof of work.' + +That is enough information to prevent attacks and still allow optimizations l= +ike skipping signature checking for ancient transactions. + +I don't think anybody is proposing replacing checkpoints with nothing. + +-- +Gavin Andresen + + +> On May 13, 2015, at 8:26 AM, Alex Mizrahi <alex.mizrahi@gmail.com> wrote: +>=20 +> Let's consider a concrete example: +>=20 +> 1. User wants to accept Bitcoin payments, as his customers want this. +> 2. He downloads a recent version of Bitcoin Core, checks hashes and so on.= + (Maybe even builds from source.) +> 3. Let's it to sync for several hours or days. +> 4. After wallet is synced, he gives his address to customer. +> 5. Customer pays.=20 +> 6. User waits 10 confirmations and ships the goods. (Suppose it's somethin= +g very expensive.) +> 7. Some time later, user wants to convert some of his bitcoins to dollars.= + He sends his bitcoins to an exchange but they never arrive. +>=20 +> He tries to investigate, and after some time discovers that his router (or= + his ISP's router) was hijacked. His Bitcoin node couldn't connect to any of= + the legitimate nodes, and thus got a complete fake chain from the attacker.= + +> Bitcoins he received were totally fake. +>=20 +> Bitcoin Core did a shitty job and confirmed some fake transactions. +> User doesn't care that if his network was not impaired, Bitcoin Core would= + have worked properly. +> The main duty of Bitcoin Core is to check whether transactions are confirm= +ed, and if it can be fooled by a simple router hack, then it does its job po= +orly. +>=20 +> If you don't see it being a problem, you should't be allowed to develop an= +ything security-related. +>=20 +>> If a node is connected to 99 dishonest nodes and 1 honest node, it can st= +ill sync with the main network. +>=20 +> Yes, it is good against Sybil attack, but not good against a network-level= + attack. +> Attack on user's routers is a very realistic, plausible attack. +> Imagine if SSL could be hacked by hacking a router, would people still use= + it? +>=20 +> Fucking no. +> =20 +>> A 3 month reversal would be devastating, so the checkpoint isn't adding m= +uch extra security. +>=20 +> WIthout checkpoints an attacker could prepare a fork for $10. +> With checkpoints, it would cost him at least $1000, but more likely upward= +s of $100000. +> That's quite a difference, no? +>=20 +> I do not care what do you think about the reasons why checkpoints were add= +ed, but it is a fact that they make the attack scenario I describe above har= +d to impossible. +>=20 +> Without checkpoints, you could perform this attack using a laptop. +> With checkpoints, you need access to significant amounts of mining ASICs. +>=20 +> --------------------------------------------------------------------------= +---- +> One dashboard for servers and applications across Physical-Virtual-Cloud=20= + +> Widest out-of-the-box monitoring support with 50+ applications +> Performance metrics, stats and reports that give you Actionable Insights +> Deep dive visibility with transaction tracing using APM Insight. +> http://ad.doubleclick.net/ddm/clk/290420510;117567292;y +> _______________________________________________ +> Bitcoin-development mailing list +> Bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net +> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development + +--Apple-Mail-1D350ADE-A483-4CFC-A151-4F92256CF5F9 +Content-Type: text/html; + charset=utf-8 +Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable + +<html><head><meta http-equiv=3D"content-type" content=3D"text/html; charset=3D= +utf-8"></head><body dir=3D"auto"><div>Checkpoints will be replaced by compil= +ed-in 'at THIS timestamp the main chain had THIS much proof of work.'</div><= +div><br></div><div>That is enough information to prevent attacks and still a= +llow optimizations like skipping signature checking for ancient transactions= +.</div><div><br></div><div>I don't think anybody is proposing replacing chec= +kpoints with nothing.<br><br>--<div>Gavin Andresen</div><div><br></div></div= +><div><br>On May 13, 2015, at 8:26 AM, Alex Mizrahi <<a href=3D"mailto:al= +ex.mizrahi@gmail.com">alex.mizrahi@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br><br></div><bl= +ockquote type=3D"cite"><div><div dir=3D"ltr">Let's consider a concrete examp= +le:<div><br></div><div>1. User wants to accept Bitcoin payments, as his cust= +omers want this.</div><div>2. He downloads a recent version of Bitcoin Core,= + checks hashes and so on. (Maybe even builds from source.)</div><div>3. Let'= +s it to sync for several hours or days.</div><div>4. After wallet is synced,= + he gives his address to customer.</div><div>5. Customer pays. </div><d= +iv>6. User waits 10 confirmations and ships the goods. (Suppose it's somethi= +ng very expensive.)</div><div>7. Some time later, user wants to convert some= + of his bitcoins to dollars. He sends his bitcoins to an exchange but they n= +ever arrive.</div><div><br></div><div>He tries to investigate, and after som= +e time discovers that his router (or his ISP's router) was hijacked. His Bit= +coin node couldn't connect to any of the legitimate nodes, and thus got a co= +mplete fake chain from the attacker.</div><div>Bitcoins he received were tot= +ally fake.</div><div><br></div><div>Bitcoin Core did a shitty job and confir= +med some fake transactions.</div><div>User doesn't care that <i>if </i>his n= +etwork was not impaired, Bitcoin Core <i>would have </i>worked properly.</di= +v><div>The main duty of Bitcoin Core is to check whether transactions are co= +nfirmed, and if it can be fooled by a simple router hack, then it does its j= +ob poorly.</div><div><br></div><div>If you don't see it being a problem, you= + should't be allowed to develop anything security-related.</div><div><br></d= +iv><div><div class=3D"gmail_extra"><div class=3D"gmail_quote"><blockquote cl= +ass=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;pa= +dding-left:1ex"><div dir=3D"ltr"><div class=3D"gmail_extra"><div class=3D"gm= +ail_quote"><div>If a node is connected to 99 dishonest nodes and 1 honest no= +de, it can still sync with the main network.<br></div></div></div></div></bl= +ockquote><div><br></div><div>Yes, it is good against Sybil attack, but not g= +ood against a network-level attack.</div><div>Attack on user's routers is a v= +ery realistic, plausible attack.</div><div>Imagine if SSL could be hacked by= + hacking a router, would people still use it?</div><div><br></div><div>Fucki= +ng no.</div><div> </div><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D= +"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div dir=3D"= +ltr"><div class=3D"gmail_extra"><div class=3D"gmail_quote"><div></div><div>A= + 3 month reversal would be devastating, so the checkpoint isn't adding much e= +xtra security.<br></div></div></div></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>W= +Ithout checkpoints an attacker could prepare a fork for $10.</div><div>With c= +heckpoints, it would cost him at least $1000, but more likely upwards of $10= +0000.</div><div>That's quite a difference, no?</div><div><br></div><div>I do= + not care what do you think about the reasons why checkpoints were added, bu= +t it is a fact that they make the attack scenario I describe above hard to i= +mpossible.</div><div><br></div><div>Without checkpoints, you could perform t= +his attack using a laptop.</div><div>With checkpoints, you need access to si= +gnificant amounts of mining ASICs.</div><div><br></div></div></div></div></d= +iv> +</div></blockquote><blockquote type=3D"cite"><div><span>--------------------= +----------------------------------------------------------</span><br><span>O= +ne dashboard for servers and applications across Physical-Virtual-Cloud </sp= +an><br><span>Widest out-of-the-box monitoring support with 50+ applications<= +/span><br><span>Performance metrics, stats and reports that give you Actiona= +ble Insights</span><br><span>Deep dive visibility with transaction tracing u= +sing APM Insight.</span><br><span><a href=3D"http://ad.doubleclick.net/ddm/c= +lk/290420510;117567292;y">http://ad.doubleclick.net/ddm/clk/290420510;117567= +292;y</a></span></div></blockquote><blockquote type=3D"cite"><div><span>____= +___________________________________________</span><br><span>Bitcoin-developm= +ent mailing list</span><br><span><a href=3D"mailto:Bitcoin-development@lists= +.sourceforge.net">Bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net</a></span><br><s= +pan><a href=3D"https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-developm= +ent">https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development</a></s= +pan><br></div></blockquote></body></html>= + +--Apple-Mail-1D350ADE-A483-4CFC-A151-4F92256CF5F9-- + + |