diff options
| author | Luke-Jr <luke@dashjr.org> | 2012-06-04 02:04:55 +0000 |
|---|---|---|
| committer | bitcoindev <bitcoindev@gnusha.org> | 2012-06-04 02:05:31 +0000 |
| commit | c5385eb632aad2724710db7d5ba99b337b41ac21 (patch) | |
| tree | 6fcad3b31637f092d6371381f048f480418f52b7 | |
| parent | f463f971a1a416916eb9357942849e33ee2ea7cb (diff) | |
| download | pi-bitcoindev-c5385eb632aad2724710db7d5ba99b337b41ac21.tar.gz pi-bitcoindev-c5385eb632aad2724710db7d5ba99b337b41ac21.zip | |
Re: [Bitcoin-development] Defeating the block withholding attack
| -rw-r--r-- | 5a/749e5afb6b7e7523607a11386c89f0fe09c2fe | 78 |
1 files changed, 78 insertions, 0 deletions
diff --git a/5a/749e5afb6b7e7523607a11386c89f0fe09c2fe b/5a/749e5afb6b7e7523607a11386c89f0fe09c2fe new file mode 100644 index 000000000..7f77d67b7 --- /dev/null +++ b/5a/749e5afb6b7e7523607a11386c89f0fe09c2fe @@ -0,0 +1,78 @@ +Received: from sog-mx-2.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.192] + helo=mx.sourceforge.net) + by sfs-ml-2.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76) + (envelope-from <luke@dashjr.org>) id 1SbMfj-0004zn-GM + for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; + Mon, 04 Jun 2012 02:05:31 +0000 +X-ACL-Warn: +Received: from zinan.dashjr.org ([173.242.112.54]) + by sog-mx-2.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76) + id 1SbMfi-0005tA-G4 for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; + Mon, 04 Jun 2012 02:05:31 +0000 +Received: from ishibashi.localnet (unknown [97.96.85.141]) + (Authenticated sender: luke-jr) + by zinan.dashjr.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id D37AA56063B; + Mon, 4 Jun 2012 02:05:24 +0000 (UTC) +From: "Luke-Jr" <luke@dashjr.org> +To: Peter Vessenes <peter@coinlab.com> +Date: Mon, 4 Jun 2012 02:04:55 +0000 +User-Agent: KMail/1.13.7 (Linux/3.2.12-gentoonestfix-intelwr; KDE/4.8.1; x86_64; + ; ) +References: <201206030052.17128.luke@dashjr.org> + <CAMGNxUu7SbnfpU8L+qp7KUmFLSU=VqcYGu2GhzRaYhkTT3Nz7A@mail.gmail.com> +In-Reply-To: <CAMGNxUu7SbnfpU8L+qp7KUmFLSU=VqcYGu2GhzRaYhkTT3Nz7A@mail.gmail.com> +X-PGP-Key-Fingerprint: E463 A93F 5F31 17EE DE6C 7316 BD02 9424 21F4 889F +X-PGP-Key-ID: BD02942421F4889F +X-PGP-Keyserver: hkp://pgp.mit.edu +MIME-Version: 1.0 +Content-Type: Text/Plain; + charset="iso-8859-15" +Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit +Message-Id: <201206040204.57503.luke@dashjr.org> +X-Spam-Score: -0.0 (/) +X-Spam-Report: Spam Filtering performed by mx.sourceforge.net. + See http://spamassassin.org/tag/ for more details. + -0.0 T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD Envelope sender domain matches handover relay + domain +X-Headers-End: 1SbMfi-0005tA-G4 +Cc: Bitcoin Dev <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net> +Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] Defeating the block withholding attack +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: Mon, 04 Jun 2012 02:05:31 -0000 + +On Monday, June 04, 2012 1:43:42 AM Peter Vessenes wrote: +> Does it have asymmetric payoff for an attacker, that is, over time does it +> pay them more to spend their hashes attacking than just mining? + +That depends on the pool's reward scheme. Some complicated forms are capable +of getting "bonus" earnings out of the pool. Under all systems, the attacker +at least gains the "hurt the pool" benefit. Given the frequency of DDoS +attacks on pools, it is clear there are people who will even pay for attacks +that provide no other benefit than harming pools. Under all systems, the +attacker doesn't lose out in any significant way. + +> My gut is that it pays less well than mining, meaning I think this is +> likely a small problem in the aggregate, and certainly not something we +> should try and fork the blockchain for until there's real pain. + +If we wait until there's real pain, it will be a painful fork. If we plan it +1-2 years out, people have time to upgrade on their own before it breaks. + +> Consider, for instance, whether it pays better than just mining bitcoins +> and spending those on 'bonuses' for getting users to switch from a pool you +> hate. + +With this attack, attackers can hurt the pool's "luck factor" *and* spend the +bitcoins they earn to bribe users away. + + |