Feedback-ID: i525146e8:Fastmail
Date: Tue, 6 Dec 2022 02:37:27 -0500
From: Peter Todd <pete@petertodd.org>
To: Bitcoin Protocol Discussion <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
Message-ID: <Y47xN07/QSy5W++I@petertodd.org>
References: <Y2I3w8O5X55sD/3C@petertodd.org> <Y2qc7Ubc5xtJhxGw@petertodd.org>
 <Y3MlSE7AWkBgiCyr@erisian.com.au> <Y3OljVGQbZ/Wj8T6@petertodd.org>
 <CAPapNH3NEBP2-GVZZ_75K-QU0psGdAHyjdAus-vfq-0jffTstg@mail.gmail.com>
 <Y47VnGNMt/p5W32U@petertodd.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha512;
 protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="LsJVqLtP1nJnk++0"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <Y47VnGNMt/p5W32U@petertodd.org>
Cc: Daniel Lipshitz <daniel@gap600.com>
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Announcement: Full-RBF Miner Bounty
Precedence: list


--LsJVqLtP1nJnk++0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Tue, Dec 06, 2022 at 12:39:40AM -0500, Peter Todd via bitcoin-dev wrote:
> 10 or 20 nodes is completely meaningless. Pools run nodes themselves, whi=
ch by
> default connect to 8 outgoing peers. There's about 5000 IPv4 listening no=
des on
> the network. When a node learns of a new block, it tells all it's peers t=
hat
> the new block exists.
>=20
> For your censorship to work, there has to be a substantial propability th=
at a
> miner *only* runs a single node (they don't), that has no incoming peers,=
 and
> all 8 peers of that node happen to be one of your 20 censoring nodes.
> Obviously, since the probability of a given peer being a censoring node is
> 20/5000, all 8 being censored is extraordinarily unlikely.
>=20
> Even if you ran so many nodes that 20% of the entire network was censorin=
g, the
> probability of all 8 outgoing peers being censors is only 0.2^8 =3D 0.000=
256%
>=20
>=20
> This is an example of information being hard to censor and easy to spread=
=2E In
> fact, for full-rbf this same math works in our favor: for a node to have =
a 50%
> chance of connecting to at least one full-rbf peer, just 8.3% of the netw=
ork
> needs to run full-rbf. 5000 IPv4 nodes * 8% =3D 400 nodes.
>=20
> The percolation threshold doesn't need to be met for this to be succesful,
> because someone to just run a full-rbf node that connects to every single
> listening node simultaneously.

FYI here's a percolation simulator for full-rbf:

https://github.com/mzumsande/fullrbf_simulation

It finds similar results to my math above.

--=20
https://petertodd.org 'peter'[:-1]@petertodd.org

--LsJVqLtP1nJnk++0
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc"

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
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=KPe1
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--LsJVqLtP1nJnk++0--