Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-2.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of gmail.com
	designates 209.85.212.47 as permitted sender)
	client-ip=209.85.212.47; envelope-from=etotheipi@gmail.com;
	helo=mail-vw0-f47.google.com; 
Message-ID: <4ECD12AA.6080605@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 23 Nov 2011 10:35:06 -0500
From: Alan Reiner <etotheipi@gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux x86_64; en-US;
	rv:1.9.2.23) Gecko/20110921 Thunderbird/3.1.15
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net
References: <201111231035.48690.andyparkins@gmail.com>	<CAGQP0AEZ9CUNd9ERyMsx741bqjLptY4pPRU6EmxQcD7kR8bdbw@mail.gmail.com>	<CALxbBHVEvCqun0aX_9awGhW39h5cx0jLPx2ptoesBcmKGO-_Dw@mail.gmail.com>	<201111231313.12534.andyparkins@gmail.com>	<CALxbBHW2KGv=sEvYqpGGsy8jjJ3+yE02BegwPhjGapuT9z7v_Q@mail.gmail.com>
	<CABsx9T0VH5i0HrEjxfxxtzO2MtmN7UEyAUXoq9puc-1nKw3G4Q@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CABsx9T0VH5i0HrEjxfxxtzO2MtmN7UEyAUXoq9puc-1nKw3G4Q@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
	boundary="------------020304080106000507000405"
Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] Addressing rapid changes in mining power
Precedence: list

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
--------------020304080106000507000405
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

I can substantiate Gavin's point quite powerfully: a couple months ago I 
did a search for the "hardest" block in the network and found a *very 
**impressive* one:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=29675.0

That block has a difficulty of **36 billion** when the network had a 
difficulty of **1.5 million**, which is 24,000 times harder than the 
target.  If we were going by the /actual /hardest chain instead 
target-based-hardest chain, /then this block produced in July would 
might still represent the longest chain!/

Yes, that means that whichever miner produced this block, could've held 
onto it for 2-4 months without doing anything else, and then broadcast 
it to fork the blockchain from a block produced months ago.  That's not 
theoretical, that's real data in the blockchain and it would be a disaster.

-Alan


On 11/23/2011 10:09 AM, Gavin Andresen wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 23, 2011 at 9:38 AM, Christian Decker
> <decker.christian@gmail.com>  wrote:
>> At some point you might find an incredibly hard block that makes your forked
>> chain the hardest one in the network
> Seems to me that's the real problem with any "hardest block found in X
> minutes" scheme.
>
> If I get lucky and find a really extremely hard block then I have an
> incentive to keep it secret and build a couple more blocks on top of
> it, then announce them all at the same time.
>
> If the rest of the network rejects my longer chain because I didn't
> announce the extremely hard block in a timely fashion... then how
> could the network ever recover from a real network split?  A network
> split/rejoin will look exactly the same.
>
> Bitcoin as-is doesn't have the "I got lucky and found an extremely
> hard block" problem because the difficulty TARGET is used to compute
> chain difficulty, not the actual hashes found.
>
>
> ---
>
> PS: I proposed a different method for dealing with large hash power
> drops for the testnet on the Forums yesterday, and am testing it
> today.
>


--------------020304080106000507000405
Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html>
  <head>
    <meta content="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1"
      http-equiv="Content-Type">
  </head>
  <body bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000000">
    I can substantiate Gavin's point quite powerfully: a couple months
    ago I did a search for the "hardest" block in the network and found
    a <b>very </b><b>impressive</b> one:<br>
    <br>
    <a href="https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=29675.0">https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=29675.0</a><br>
    <br>
    That block has a difficulty of <b>*36 billion</b>* when the network
    had a difficulty of *<b>1.5 million</b>*, which is 24,000 times
    harder than the target.&nbsp; If we were going by the <i>actual </i>hardest
    chain instead target-based-hardest chain, <i>then this block
      produced in July would might still represent the longest chain!</i>
    <br>
    <br>
    Yes, that means that whichever miner produced this block, could've
    held onto it for 2-4 months without doing anything else, and then
    broadcast it to fork the blockchain from a block produced months
    ago.&nbsp; That's not theoretical, that's real data in the blockchain and
    it would be a disaster.<br>
    <br>
    -Alan<br>
    <br>
    <br>
    <br>
    On 11/23/2011 10:09 AM, Gavin Andresen wrote:
    <blockquote
cite="mid:CABsx9T0VH5i0HrEjxfxxtzO2MtmN7UEyAUXoq9puc-1nKw3G4Q@mail.gmail.com"
      type="cite">
      <pre wrap="">On Wed, Nov 23, 2011 at 9:38 AM, Christian Decker
<a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:decker.christian@gmail.com">&lt;decker.christian@gmail.com&gt;</a> wrote:
</pre>
      <blockquote type="cite">
        <pre wrap="">At some point you might find an incredibly hard block that makes your forked
chain the hardest one in the network
</pre>
      </blockquote>
      <pre wrap="">
Seems to me that's the real problem with any "hardest block found in X
minutes" scheme.

If I get lucky and find a really extremely hard block then I have an
incentive to keep it secret and build a couple more blocks on top of
it, then announce them all at the same time.

If the rest of the network rejects my longer chain because I didn't
announce the extremely hard block in a timely fashion... then how
could the network ever recover from a real network split?  A network
split/rejoin will look exactly the same.

Bitcoin as-is doesn't have the "I got lucky and found an extremely
hard block" problem because the difficulty TARGET is used to compute
chain difficulty, not the actual hashes found.


---

PS: I proposed a different method for dealing with large hash power
drops for the testnet on the Forums yesterday, and am testing it
today.

</pre>
    </blockquote>
    <br>
  </body>
</html>

--------------020304080106000507000405--