Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-3.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of gmail.com
	designates 209.85.220.45 as permitted sender)
	client-ip=209.85.220.45;
	envelope-from=christophe.biocca@gmail.com;
	helo=mail-pa0-f45.google.com; 
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CAJHLa0N1-8LfFuWq=vS0r-t2Bt-qZ6yKuGjrnicUOj+K6Gpx5A@mail.gmail.com>
References: <5279D49D.5050807@jerviss.org>
	<CAJHLa0N1-8LfFuWq=vS0r-t2Bt-qZ6yKuGjrnicUOj+K6Gpx5A@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 6 Nov 2013 13:06:47 -0500
Message-ID: <CANOOu=-MsPPgACKcHvsvtFAOAiULL+BOQvJz1tC3L=nT8wN01Q@mail.gmail.com>
From: Christophe Biocca <christophe.biocca@gmail.com>
To: Bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a11364fb63babdb04ea860341
Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] we can all relax now
Precedence: list

--001a11364fb63babdb04ea860341
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1

I might try building this sometime soon. I think it may also serve an
educational purpose when trying to understand the whole network's behaviour.

What level of accuracy are we looking for though? Obviously we need to
fully emulate the steps of the network protocol, and we need to be able to
specify time taken for transmission/processing for each node. Do we care
about the actual contents of the messages (to be able to simulate double
spend attempts, invalid transactions and blocks, SPV node communication),
and their validation (actual signatures and proof of work)?

I imagine the latter is pretty useless, beyond specifying that the
signature/proof of work is valid/invalid.

If we could build up a set of experiments we'd like to run on it, it would
help clarify what's needed.

Off the top of my head:

- Peter Todd's miner strategy of sending blocks to only 51% of the
hashpower.
- Various network split conditions, and how aware of the split nodes would
be (and the effect of client variability).
- Testing the feasability of network race double spends, or Finney attacks.
- Various network partition scenarios.
- Tricking SPV nodes.
On Nov 6, 2013 6:37 AM, "Jeff Garzik" <jgarzik@bitpay.com> wrote:

> I will contribute 1 BTC to this bounty, under same terms and expiration.
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> November Webinars for C, C++, Fortran Developers
> Accelerate application performance with scalable programming models.
> Explore
> techniques for threading, error checking, porting, and tuning. Get the most
> from the latest Intel processors and coprocessors. See abstracts and
> register
> http://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/clk?id=60136231&iu=/4140/ostg.clktrk
> _______________________________________________
> Bitcoin-development mailing list
> Bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development
>
>

--001a11364fb63babdb04ea860341
Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<div dir=3D"ltr"><p>I might try building this sometime soon. I think it may=
 also serve an educational purpose when trying to understand the whole netw=
ork&#39;s behaviour.</p><p>What level of accuracy are we looking for though=
? Obviously we need to fully emulate the steps of the network protocol, and=
 we need to be able to specify time taken for transmission/processing for e=
ach node. Do we care about the actual contents of the messages (to be able =
to simulate double spend attempts, invalid transactions and blocks, SPV nod=
e communication), and their validation (actual signatures and proof of work=
)?<br>
</p><p>I imagine the latter is pretty useless, beyond specifying that the s=
ignature/proof of work is valid/invalid.</p><p>If we could build up a set o=
f experiments we&#39;d like to run on it, it would help clarify what&#39;s =
needed.</p>
<p>Off the top of my head:</p><p>- Peter Todd&#39;s miner strategy of sendi=
ng blocks to only 51% of the hashpower.<br>- Various network split conditio=
ns, and how aware of the split nodes would be (and the effect of client var=
iability).<br>
- Testing the feasability of network race double spends, or Finney attacks.=
<br>- Various network partition scenarios.<br>- Tricking SPV nodes.<br></p>=
<div class=3D"gmail_quote">On Nov 6, 2013 6:37 AM, &quot;Jeff Garzik&quot; =
&lt;<a href=3D"mailto:jgarzik@bitpay.com" target=3D"_blank">jgarzik@bitpay.=
com</a>&gt; wrote:<br type=3D"attribution">
<blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1p=
x #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<p>I will contribute 1 BTC to this bounty, under same terms and expiration.=
</p>
<br>-----------------------------------------------------------------------=
-------<br>
November Webinars for C, C++, Fortran Developers<br>
Accelerate application performance with scalable programming models. Explor=
e<br>
techniques for threading, error checking, porting, and tuning. Get the most=
<br>
from the latest Intel processors and coprocessors. See abstracts and regist=
er<br>
<a href=3D"http://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/clk?id=3D60136231&amp;iu=
=3D/4140/ostg.clktrk" target=3D"_blank">http://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gam=
pad/clk?id=3D60136231&amp;iu=3D/4140/ostg.clktrk</a><br>___________________=
____________________________<br>


Bitcoin-development mailing list<br>
<a href=3D"mailto:Bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net" target=3D"_bla=
nk">Bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net</a><br>
<a href=3D"https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development=
" target=3D"_blank">https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-de=
velopment</a><br>
<br></blockquote></div>
</div>

--001a11364fb63babdb04ea860341--