1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
|
Received: from sog-mx-1.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.191]
helo=mx.sourceforge.net)
by sfs-ml-1.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76)
(envelope-from <decker.christian@gmail.com>) id 1SXpFv-0002lj-OQ
for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Fri, 25 May 2012 07:48:15 +0000
Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-1.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of gmail.com
designates 209.85.214.47 as permitted sender)
client-ip=209.85.214.47;
envelope-from=decker.christian@gmail.com;
helo=mail-bk0-f47.google.com;
Received: from mail-bk0-f47.google.com ([209.85.214.47])
by sog-mx-1.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128)
(Exim 4.76) id 1SXpFq-0002dF-4c
for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Fri, 25 May 2012 07:48:15 +0000
Received: by bkcjm2 with SMTP id jm2so730430bkc.34
for <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>;
Fri, 25 May 2012 00:48:03 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.204.128.200 with SMTP id l8mr1012931bks.94.1337932083631; Fri,
25 May 2012 00:48:03 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.204.148.76 with HTTP; Fri, 25 May 2012 00:47:23 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <CA+8xBpd1nXWLFihRbnjwftJsCHOK0uVGJjNXOgOETaY5PFGURA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CA+8xBpdBe4yR6xkCODL6JQ41Gyx9eWcGGGvcQVt7DCmaEnAhbg@mail.gmail.com>
<201205250045.24540.luke@dashjr.org>
<CA+8xBpfOh-61z_7e1jzz7ZYV4eiCCi=ruQbKBuQp1juuSdYdbQ@mail.gmail.com>
<201205250057.39749.luke@dashjr.org>
<CA+8xBpd1nXWLFihRbnjwftJsCHOK0uVGJjNXOgOETaY5PFGURA@mail.gmail.com>
From: Christian Decker <decker.christian@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 25 May 2012 09:47:23 +0200
Message-ID: <CALxbBHWe7KhTpdBYKmQ4XUuCdRLefNcdevG+GH7b9_+Sf2VCTw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Jeff Garzik <jgarzik@exmulti.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=00151747be5894162f04c0d79675
X-Spam-Score: -0.6 (/)
X-Spam-Report: Spam Filtering performed by mx.sourceforge.net.
See http://spamassassin.org/tag/ for more details.
-1.5 SPF_CHECK_PASS SPF reports sender host as permitted sender for
sender-domain
0.0 FREEMAIL_FROM Sender email is commonly abused enduser mail provider
(decker.christian[at]gmail.com)
-0.0 SPF_PASS SPF: sender matches SPF record
1.0 HTML_MESSAGE BODY: HTML included in message
-0.1 DKIM_VALID_AU Message has a valid DKIM or DK signature from
author's domain
0.1 DKIM_SIGNED Message has a DKIM or DK signature,
not necessarily valid
-0.1 DKIM_VALID Message has at least one valid DKIM or DK signature
X-Headers-End: 1SXpFq-0002dF-4c
Cc: bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net
Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] Punishing empty blocks?
X-BeenThere: bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: <bitcoin-development.lists.sourceforge.net>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development>,
<mailto:bitcoin-development-request@lists.sourceforge.net?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://sourceforge.net/mailarchive/forum.php?forum_name=bitcoin-development>
List-Post: <mailto:bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>
List-Help: <mailto:bitcoin-development-request@lists.sourceforge.net?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development>,
<mailto:bitcoin-development-request@lists.sourceforge.net?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 25 May 2012 07:48:15 -0000
--00151747be5894162f04c0d79675
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
How about a simple proof of work test? This one though does not ask for CPU
work but asks the miner for a random old transaction. If the miner really
stores the entire blockchain he will not have any problem answering to that
getdata request, whereas a botnet would have to ask someone else for it,
which could be detected if the response time deviates too much from what
has been previously measured (compare it against getdata for the block they
advertise). It's not perfect but it allows an estimate of whether it is a
chainless miner.
Regards,
Chris
--
Christian Decker
On Fri, May 25, 2012 at 3:17 AM, Jeff Garzik <jgarzik@exmulti.com> wrote:
> On Thu, May 24, 2012 at 8:57 PM, Luke-Jr <luke@dashjr.org> wrote:
> > Block times are not accurate enough for that.
>
> The times in your log are very accurate, assuming your system clock is
> remotely accurate.
>
> --
> Jeff Garzik
> exMULTI, Inc.
> jgarzik@exmulti.com
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Live Security Virtual Conference
> Exclusive live event will cover all the ways today's security and
> threat landscape has changed and how IT managers can respond. Discussions
> will include endpoint security, mobile security and the latest in malware
> threats. http://www.accelacomm.com/jaw/sfrnl04242012/114/50122263/
> _______________________________________________
> Bitcoin-development mailing list
> Bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development
>
--00151747be5894162f04c0d79675
Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
How about a simple proof of work test? This one though does not ask for CPU=
work but asks the miner for a random old transaction. If the miner really =
stores the entire blockchain he will not have any problem answering to that=
getdata request, whereas a botnet would have to ask someone else for it, w=
hich could be detected if the response time deviates too much from what has=
been previously measured (compare it against getdata for the block they ad=
vertise). It's not perfect but it allows an estimate of whether it is a=
chainless miner.<div>
<br></div><div>Regards,</div><div>Chris</div><div>--<br>Christian Decker<br=
><br>
<br><br><div class=3D"gmail_quote">On Fri, May 25, 2012 at 3:17 AM, Jeff Ga=
rzik <span dir=3D"ltr"><<a href=3D"mailto:jgarzik@exmulti.com" target=3D=
"_blank">jgarzik@exmulti.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class=3D"=
gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-=
left:1ex">
<div class=3D"im">On Thu, May 24, 2012 at 8:57 PM, Luke-Jr <<a href=3D"m=
ailto:luke@dashjr.org">luke@dashjr.org</a>> wrote:<br>
> Block times are not accurate enough for that.<br>
<br>
</div>The times in your log are very accurate, assuming your system clock i=
s<br>
remotely accurate.<br>
<div class=3D"im HOEnZb"><br>
--<br>
Jeff Garzik<br>
exMULTI, Inc.<br>
<a href=3D"mailto:jgarzik@exmulti.com">jgarzik@exmulti.com</a><br>
<br>
</div><div class=3D"HOEnZb"><div class=3D"h5">-----------------------------=
-------------------------------------------------<br>
Live Security Virtual Conference<br>
Exclusive live event will cover all the ways today's security and<br>
threat landscape has changed and how IT managers can respond. Discussions<b=
r>
will include endpoint security, mobile security and the latest in malware<b=
r>
threats. <a href=3D"http://www.accelacomm.com/jaw/sfrnl04242012/114/5012226=
3/" target=3D"_blank">http://www.accelacomm.com/jaw/sfrnl04242012/114/50122=
263/</a><br>
_______________________________________________<br>
Bitcoin-development mailing list<br>
<a href=3D"mailto:Bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net">Bitcoin-develo=
pment@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>
</div></div></blockquote></div><br></div>
--00151747be5894162f04c0d79675--
|
