Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-2.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of gmail.com
	designates 74.125.82.178 as permitted sender)
	client-ip=74.125.82.178; envelope-from=ryacko@gmail.com;
	helo=mail-we0-f178.google.com; 
MIME-Version: 1.0
Sender: ryacko@gmail.com
In-Reply-To: <52B8EB37.2080006@monetize.io>
References: <CAO7N=i1_ZyGBAsOGdCvPwJNhARbe-MuWzi9MYLsa3WS_PO25hg@mail.gmail.com>
	<52B7AC86.9010808@monetize.io>
	<CAO7N=i1avBNy9wfQSAyDH19ywJ__C_A9XSVBbufa42=Lu4MjRg@mail.gmail.com>
	<52B8EB37.2080006@monetize.io>
Date: Mon, 23 Dec 2013 23:37:32 -0800
Message-ID: <CAO7N=i1DpGnfjgAX6GHNC-yVq_9P38vb_1MszcRcRhEA8nnLcA@mail.gmail.com>
From: Ryan Carboni <ryan.jc.pc@gmail.com>
To: Mark Friedenbach <mark@monetize.io>,
	bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=089e013a16a43faaca04ee42d122
Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] Bitcoin difficulty sanity check suggestion
Precedence: list

--089e013a16a43faaca04ee42d122
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1

It does take a state-level actor to apparently disconnect *multiple *miners
from the rest of the network.

How many Bitcoin miners hash an entire percent or more of the Bitcoin
network? What you're proposing is an attack at the highest levels of the
internet infrastructure.


On Mon, Dec 23, 2013 at 6:02 PM, Mark Friedenbach <mark@monetize.io> wrote:

> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> Which would leave you entirely in the hands of your dialup provider.
> Or the manufacturer of your switch. Or your ISP's backbone provider.
> It does not take a state-level actor to do network attacks.
>
> BTW, what does "difficulty would be reset" mean? There are multiple
> ways to interpret that statement. In the most straightforward way, my
> objections apply.
>
> On 12/23/2013 05:51 PM, Ryan Carboni wrote:
> > I think you misunderstood my statement. If time > 3 days, and after
> > 4 blocks have been mined, then difficulty would be reset.
> >
> > In theory, one would have to isolate roughly one percent of the
> > Bitcoin network's hashing power to do so. Which would indicate an
> > attack by a state actor as opposed to anything else. Arguably, the
> > safest way to run Bitcoin is through a proprietary dial-up
> > network.
> >
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: GnuPG v1.4.14 (GNU/Linux)
> Comment: GPGTools - http://gpgtools.org
> Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/
>
> iQIcBAEBAgAGBQJSuOs3AAoJEAdzVfsmodw4BwAP/0Ynq/SxNIBFFdL7RaSiE5KM
> zNRtlZJCYvmCXgKKtMyO+Ron+YGqY8yg8r0ifb6oqlJCG5t0msExym/CA9CYMV6V
> UnVaGaNkFrLSF1q8Dt6X4I9OSeCiBstahQOjPaerUycLTY2W/cKPblhCC0rvXrfI
> 3Fz3p6SHbCcNHw89w6ry3QG420+UNroFCpNu+Oa2YfWoZY2p91JLbuiUwXL5KEac
> PDskHGsb9q1vyAkCJ6eOp3MJfFP/Dy7mASVwPql/nzf2ceSDtO4dpngo0uNsCwFo
> QSWIRdWv4OiJk1OM6fjEj/51mebczgO0ShczRKk9QkX4FEFEqP/ARdbl8bSC4IsT
> /3s2HHiYDahEOMiXV5ao3kmBpyUR8p4erRbtwRzdZzOgGL37yxj8VGmY93bkVQNB
> zi2n3WCCju0a+gqREyaEFAM8kPIhx9++YNIddwQxK38njUSe2CzqM8t+28ZfseYl
> YnQeNFUfcmvzhxTXxgyoCuGF5HbFRTn/AallkYSPxYtxGq4WuLN36BS3cTv8wCLz
> sYTyuxWxjZ7CS8fx8MWilw72tQf9torwmrWJtjgRLFE3OvQxRjN+ppDV8cfC8UAB
> p0CGzBgVaw5yZ5LzCawQVTGWJdzs+ZPlQu8SO53dHhEtRAmdbFa0mMD2FrS/5Ih/
> YcwdP6Xm69HTgzCenu5F
> =HtRS
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
>

--089e013a16a43faaca04ee42d122
Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<div dir=3D"ltr">It does take a state-level actor to apparently disconnect =
<i>multiple </i>miners from the rest of the network.<div><br></div><div>How=
 many Bitcoin miners hash an entire percent or more of the Bitcoin network?=
 What you&#39;re proposing is an attack at the highest levels of the intern=
et infrastructure.</div>
</div><div class=3D"gmail_extra"><br><br><div class=3D"gmail_quote">On Mon,=
 Dec 23, 2013 at 6:02 PM, Mark Friedenbach <span dir=3D"ltr">&lt;<a href=3D=
"mailto:mark@monetize.io" target=3D"_blank">mark@monetize.io</a>&gt;</span>=
 wrote:<br>
<blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1p=
x #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div class=3D"im">-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESS=
AGE-----<br>
Hash: SHA1<br>
<br>
</div>Which would leave you entirely in the hands of your dialup provider.<=
br>
Or the manufacturer of your switch. Or your ISP&#39;s backbone provider.<br=
>
It does not take a state-level actor to do network attacks.<br>
<br>
BTW, what does &quot;difficulty would be reset&quot; mean? There are multip=
le<br>
ways to interpret that statement. In the most straightforward way, my<br>
objections apply.<br>
<div class=3D"im"><br>
On 12/23/2013 05:51 PM, Ryan Carboni wrote:<br>
&gt; I think you misunderstood my statement. If time &gt; 3 days, and after=
<br>
&gt; 4 blocks have been mined, then difficulty would be reset.<br>
&gt;<br>
&gt; In theory, one would have to isolate roughly one percent of the<br>
&gt; Bitcoin network&#39;s hashing power to do so. Which would indicate an<=
br>
&gt; attack by a state actor as opposed to anything else. Arguably, the<br>
&gt; safest way to run Bitcoin is through a proprietary dial-up<br>
&gt; network.<br>
&gt;<br>
</div><div class=3D"im">-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----<br>
Version: GnuPG v1.4.14 (GNU/Linux)<br>
Comment: GPGTools - <a href=3D"http://gpgtools.org" target=3D"_blank">http:=
//gpgtools.org</a><br>
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - <a href=3D"http://www.enigmail.net/=
" target=3D"_blank">http://www.enigmail.net/</a><br>
<br>
</div>iQIcBAEBAgAGBQJSuOs3AAoJEAdzVfsmodw4BwAP/0Ynq/SxNIBFFdL7RaSiE5KM<br>
zNRtlZJCYvmCXgKKtMyO+Ron+YGqY8yg8r0ifb6oqlJCG5t0msExym/CA9CYMV6V<br>
UnVaGaNkFrLSF1q8Dt6X4I9OSeCiBstahQOjPaerUycLTY2W/cKPblhCC0rvXrfI<br>
3Fz3p6SHbCcNHw89w6ry3QG420+UNroFCpNu+Oa2YfWoZY2p91JLbuiUwXL5KEac<br>
PDskHGsb9q1vyAkCJ6eOp3MJfFP/Dy7mASVwPql/nzf2ceSDtO4dpngo0uNsCwFo<br>
QSWIRdWv4OiJk1OM6fjEj/51mebczgO0ShczRKk9QkX4FEFEqP/ARdbl8bSC4IsT<br>
/3s2HHiYDahEOMiXV5ao3kmBpyUR8p4erRbtwRzdZzOgGL37yxj8VGmY93bkVQNB<br>
zi2n3WCCju0a+gqREyaEFAM8kPIhx9++YNIddwQxK38njUSe2CzqM8t+28ZfseYl<br>
YnQeNFUfcmvzhxTXxgyoCuGF5HbFRTn/AallkYSPxYtxGq4WuLN36BS3cTv8wCLz<br>
sYTyuxWxjZ7CS8fx8MWilw72tQf9torwmrWJtjgRLFE3OvQxRjN+ppDV8cfC8UAB<br>
p0CGzBgVaw5yZ5LzCawQVTGWJdzs+ZPlQu8SO53dHhEtRAmdbFa0mMD2FrS/5Ih/<br>
YcwdP6Xm69HTgzCenu5F<br>
=3DHtRS<br>
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----<br>
</blockquote></div><br></div>

--089e013a16a43faaca04ee42d122--