Message-ID: <563BE746.5030406@voskuil.org>
Date: Thu, 05 Nov 2015 15:33:26 -0800
From: Eric Voskuil <eric@voskuil.org>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64;
	rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.2.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Adam Back <adam@cypherspace.org>, 
	Bitcoin Dev <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
References: <CALqxMTE1JDsT8fSoDZVTUWfnw4Cmb9LkDa+B-XUyXGPxAYernA@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CALqxMTE1JDsT8fSoDZVTUWfnw4Cmb9LkDa+B-XUyXGPxAYernA@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1;
	protocol="application/pgp-signature";
	boundary="oEAsmcSk4FO4v0KkW0W7NQQ6OTnOJcq2c"
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] summarising security assumptions (re cost metrics)
Precedence: list

This is an OpenPGP/MIME signed message (RFC 4880 and 3156)
--oEAsmcSk4FO4v0KkW0W7NQQ6OTnOJcq2c
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On 11/05/2015 03:03 PM, Adam Back via bitcoin-dev wrote:
> ...
> Validators: Economically dependent full nodes are an important part of
> Bitcoin's security model because they assure Bitcoin security by
> enforcing consensus rules.  While full nodes do not have orphan
> risk, we also dont want maliciously crafted blocks with pathological
> validation cost to erode security by knocking reasonable spec full
> nodes off the network on CPU (or bandwidth grounds).
> ...
> Validators vs Miner decentralisation balance:
>=20
> There is a tradeoff where we can tolerate weak miner decentralisation
> if we can rely on good validator decentralisation or vice versa.  But
> both being weak is risky.  Currently given mining centralisation
> itself is weak, that makes validator decentralisation a critical
> remaining defence - ie security depends more on validator
> decentralisation than it would if mining decentralisation was in a
> better shape.

This side of the security model seems underappreciated, if not poorly
understood. Weakening is not just occurring because of the proliferation
of non-validating wallet software and centralized (web) wallets, but
also centralized Bitcoin APIs.

Over time developers tend to settle on a couple of API providers for a
given problem. Bing and Google for search and mapping, for example. All
applications and users of them, depending on an API service, reduce to a
single validator. Imagine most Bitcoin applications built on the
equivalent of Bing and Google.

e


--oEAsmcSk4FO4v0KkW0W7NQQ6OTnOJcq2c
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc"
Content-Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="signature.asc"

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1

iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJWO+dGAAoJEDzYwH8LXOFODyoIAI1GO19Rbuh2E+lvcRqjTDRu
ZoNvBtfMgEvdhLdH8OFxPz//S19kTxhmZbs6VyKiAzAIN0+XDac0J85QWVQ/scHv
9ZvVug60t2Bdra0Miz8H82m2WxbW6r7yFStnUuDvDwI45/sI+inuBzTEc38xI1ev
TL4AK+fwWNcdABbSP7oLzIFBjmKXp99WO9ieMGXqC+DJdjE9zMR9114Yk85dddc5
AqylAPS3AQMe6DG1Bnh6gWHVFB54qbNNu68XHUCUeET/Hxqou25lWVsxwSsdV/jy
KDLhKq1evqZz0VJrfUwuo2IFk5cuReBGCKL9Ito23ia/rCt5L6KTIEZiootvfI8=
=nhxV
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--oEAsmcSk4FO4v0KkW0W7NQQ6OTnOJcq2c--