Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-2.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of gmail.com
	designates 209.85.214.47 as permitted sender)
	client-ip=209.85.214.47; envelope-from=timon.elviejo@gmail.com;
	helo=mail-bw0-f47.google.com; 
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <201111231529.46154.andyparkins@gmail.com>
References: <201111231035.48690.andyparkins@gmail.com>
	<201111231254.41426.andyparkins@gmail.com>
	<CAGQP0AEQukQYB5Bmn-XfK3G0hm0q9r2YDL5W=zy+eBY7Vufb8g@mail.gmail.com>
	<201111231529.46154.andyparkins@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 23 Nov 2011 16:38:30 +0100
Message-ID: <CAGQP0AGWTa-iRsryMZnFxnMEPRdy_hm+P+FUN9jBVK0F+AgVDA@mail.gmail.com>
From: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Jorge_Tim=F3n?= <timon.elviejo@gmail.com>
To: Andy Parkins <andyparkins@gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Cc: bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net
Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] Addressing rapid changes in mining power
Precedence: list

But the protocol must have a deterministic way to determine if a block
must be accepted or rejected.
I don't know what NTP is, but if you can have a perfect distributed
clock your proposal may work.

2011/11/23, Andy Parkins <andyparkins@gmail.com>:
> On 2011 November 23 Wednesday, Jorge Tim=F3n wrote:
>
>> Well, I meant "the probability of  your block being the hardest".
>> What a miner can do is hash the block (cheating the timestamp) for 2
>> more minutes than the rest of the people and then send it to the other
>> nodes. Nodes cannot possibly know when did you hashed the block only
>> by looking at their clock when they receive it, because there's also
>> network latency.
>
> True enough; but then the same is true for everyone else.  If the window =
is
> 2
> minutes after the stated time, then everyone _can_ wait until the end of
> that
> window.  However, they risk their block being rejected by their peers, an=
d
> their efforts are wasted.  In fact, it can be guaranteed by making the
> accept
> window zero.  There is then no reason to carry on computing after the rew=
ard
> window closes, since you know your peers will reject it.
>
>> > (2) For the network clock; see util.cpp:GetAdjustedTime().
>>
>> 1) This is part of the satoshi client but not the protocol. A miner
>> can rewrite this part of the code and there won't be anything in the
>> chain that contradicts the protocol.
>
> Well yes.  What does that matter?  It's only a way of calculating an aver=
age
> time.  The node can use any clock it wants, as long as the block time is
> verified by the peers.
>
>> 2) I haven't read the code but I'm pretty sure that's not a perfect
>> decentralized clock.
>
> It definitely isn't.  NTP is mentioned in the source as an alternative.
>
>> I will be more specific. Where's the network clock in the chain (in
>> the protocol)?
>
> It's nothing to do with the protocol; it's an individual miner choosing
> whether to accept or reject a block based on the timestamp it claims, and
> the
> current time as the miner sees it.  For the sake of compatibility, the
> clients
> currently choose to use a community clock as "current", as established fr=
om
> the time they receive from peers in the "version" message (it actually ho=
lds
> offsets between them, which is pretty bad, as a long-connected client wil=
l
> drift).  They don't have to, but if miners aren't using time that
> approximates
> what their peers are using, under my system, their blocks would be reject=
ed:
> so an incentive to use that "community clock" exists.
>
>
>
> Andy
>
> --
> Dr Andy Parkins
> andyparkins@gmail.com
>


--=20
Jorge Tim=F3n