MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <20151220044450.GA23942@muck>
References: <20151219184240.GB12893@muck>
	<CAAcC9yvh2ma2dFhNDEKs7vfXyQF9L+T0YtRvOsJ15AbfVti=cw@mail.gmail.com>
	<4882BD35-D890-4860-9222-5C23AEB6AE89@mattcorallo.com>
	<CAAcC9yspsPs3gbumS4rTOg-P-=V=tycn2Z1nVPGGHwJ-nP+PBg@mail.gmail.com>
	<20151220044450.GA23942@muck>
Date: Sat, 26 Dec 2015 00:12:13 -0800
Message-ID: <CAP3QyGJD3SaM6Bvvw66jAvVFkQhrfJfRQTxbbe8a=O1zK_P6tw@mail.gmail.com>
From: Multipool Admin <admin@multipool.us>
To: Peter Todd <pete@petertodd.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a113ce05a22a3030527c8a188
Cc: Bitcoin Dev <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] We need to fix the block withholding attack
Precedence: list

--001a113ce05a22a3030527c8a188
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8

Any attempt to 'fix' this problem, would most likely require changes to all
mining software, why not just make mining more decentralized in general?

For example, allow anyone to submit proofs of work to Bitcoind that are
some fraction of the network difficulty and receive payment for them if
they're valid.  This would also encourage the proliferation of full nodes
since anyone could solo mine again.  Then, the next coinbase transaction
could be split among, say, the top 100 proofs of work.

Eligius already does their miner payouts like this.

If you want to fix an issue with mining, fix the selfish mining issue first
as it's a much larger and more dangerous potential issue.

I don't believe it was ever clearly established whether Eligius suffered a
block withholding attack or was just the victim of a miner with (what was,
at the time) a large amount of faulty hardware, however, from the
Bitcointalk threads at the time I believe it was assumed to be the latter.

--Adam


On Sat, Dec 19, 2015 at 8:44 PM, Peter Todd via bitcoin-dev <
bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:

> On Sat, Dec 19, 2015 at 07:43:59PM -0800, Chris Priest via bitcoin-dev
> wrote:
> > Then shouldn't this be something the pool deals with, not the bitcoin
> protocol?
>
> There is no known way for pools - especially ones that allow anonymous
> hashers - to effectively prevent block withholding attacks without
> changing the Bitcoin protocol.
>
> --
> 'peter'[:-1]@petertodd.org
> 00000000000000000188b6321da7feae60d74c7b0becbdab3b1a0bd57f10947d
>
> _______________________________________________
> bitcoin-dev mailing list
> bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
>
>

--001a113ce05a22a3030527c8a188
Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<div dir=3D"ltr">Any attempt to &#39;fix&#39; this problem, would most like=
ly require changes to all mining software, why not just make mining more de=
centralized in general?<div><br></div><div>For example, allow anyone to sub=
mit proofs of work to Bitcoind that are some fraction of the network diffic=
ulty and receive payment for them if they&#39;re valid.=C2=A0 This would al=
so encourage the proliferation of full nodes since anyone could solo mine a=
gain.=C2=A0 Then, the next coinbase transaction could be split among, say, =
the top 100 proofs of work.</div><div><br></div><div>Eligius already does t=
heir miner payouts like this.</div><div><br></div><div>If you want to fix a=
n issue with mining, fix the selfish mining issue first as it&#39;s a much =
larger and more dangerous potential issue.</div><div><br></div><div>I don&#=
39;t believe it was ever clearly established whether Eligius suffered a blo=
ck withholding attack or was just the victim of a miner with (what was, at =
the time) a large amount of faulty hardware, however, from the Bitcointalk =
threads at the time I believe it was assumed to be the latter.</div><div><b=
r></div><div>--Adam</div><div><br></div></div><div class=3D"gmail_extra"><b=
r><div class=3D"gmail_quote">On Sat, Dec 19, 2015 at 8:44 PM, Peter Todd vi=
a bitcoin-dev <span dir=3D"ltr">&lt;<a href=3D"mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.lin=
uxfoundation.org" target=3D"_blank">bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org</=
a>&gt;</span> wrote:<br><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0=
 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><span class=3D"">On =
Sat, Dec 19, 2015 at 07:43:59PM -0800, Chris Priest via bitcoin-dev wrote:<=
br>
&gt; Then shouldn&#39;t this be something the pool deals with, not the bitc=
oin protocol?<br>
<br>
</span>There is no known way for pools - especially ones that allow anonymo=
us<br>
hashers - to effectively prevent block withholding attacks without<br>
changing the Bitcoin protocol.<br>
<div class=3D"HOEnZb"><div class=3D"h5"><br>
--<br>
&#39;peter&#39;[:-1]@<a href=3D"http://petertodd.org" rel=3D"noreferrer" ta=
rget=3D"_blank">petertodd.org</a><br>
00000000000000000188b6321da7feae60d74c7b0becbdab3b1a0bd57f10947d<br>
</div></div><br>_______________________________________________<br>
bitcoin-dev mailing list<br>
<a href=3D"mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org">bitcoin-dev@lists.=
linuxfoundation.org</a><br>
<a href=3D"https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev" =
rel=3D"noreferrer" target=3D"_blank">https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mail=
man/listinfo/bitcoin-dev</a><br>
<br></blockquote></div><br></div>

--001a113ce05a22a3030527c8a188--