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
|
Return-Path: <ZmnSCPxj@protonmail.com>
Received: from silver.osuosl.org (smtp3.osuosl.org [140.211.166.136])
by lists.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A45B9C0051
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Thu, 1 Oct 2020 01:36:52 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1])
by silver.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 750592040F
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Thu, 1 Oct 2020 01:36:52 +0000 (UTC)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at osuosl.org
Received: from silver.osuosl.org ([127.0.0.1])
by localhost (.osuosl.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024)
with ESMTP id U+yZEY1eh4wU
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Thu, 1 Oct 2020 01:36:50 +0000 (UTC)
X-Greylist: domain auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6
Received: from mail4.protonmail.ch (mail4.protonmail.ch [185.70.40.27])
by silver.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B81E3203BF
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Thu, 1 Oct 2020 01:36:49 +0000 (UTC)
Date: Thu, 01 Oct 2020 01:36:35 +0000
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=protonmail.com;
s=protonmail; t=1601516207;
bh=kQuM22+qfTBNBgXDjNpD2oerK03oq4wex3FP4FbQUfo=;
h=Date:To:From:Cc:Reply-To:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:From;
b=CpgU9YL0hwINZJe/dqIy2NQQ3zJprVQsniXb6wUy4dkVe17LSnGCrU2nvLvUNLWtN
+9zW/C2nzfku1SUnEDKyVAYiNv/UBeiQLiIDV8LydGo4e5s2G7HBfZYJB0I08KN1lu
XFbguPFDv5ZtjZyxZDN7Bm/NEQ5cpMqgc9yeazas=
To: Mike Brooks <m@ib.tc>
From: ZmnSCPxj <ZmnSCPxj@protonmail.com>
Reply-To: ZmnSCPxj <ZmnSCPxj@protonmail.com>
Message-ID: <6DNfWVT6VsuQvFamBbqyGZYokENNopo28FZO6P5-4F0uoOMz2xAAQQZxBxsOmue4J3miOoMq_2MJVpiTtUy3bE9-qMOSVXqRhQoyfriTpXU=@protonmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CALFqKjSiyjvtkmdSodP8pXdjxw+k0nJn_jTy06CQ6VHe3XTn2g@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAPaMHfTSqyDDBfmdM=z-FtLRTUxed2pNmoOFx-t2w0MyZ_mgCg@mail.gmail.com>
<CACAqsqOSBrdUo4VTUsG68dSDpfZfVOXvnMK5nqmvuhxRCC0gjQ@mail.gmail.com>
<CALFqKjQP75TdaDeop-bxpcW5PHpmG4RwW-MDjUFGrqUy=xNdoQ@mail.gmail.com>
<5RgK7X_rcpeMbdOdFxKiWkzg6dVcjD0uF_KI8Wt2w7WCBd7dB552EZuRqNQiBbgF4dGBcojwE9GzdWdJeCNmaAlYGYDMAyz6yzSl2QmLC98=@protonmail.com>
<CALFqKjQDx7BrGEUJLhN=VXS8c--bVOJV4pvQTV6ag2Cy+GjWbw@mail.gmail.com>
<SSp6MfYHW3q4TqoWyK-2ZUzLQbAqaWxTzJd62cAwKd1tFRac-embhjUZKogr3m__GcIezY5-llLyO91lur7bamlM6tiHRs-nGCNMxe2UKLE=@protonmail.com>
<CALFqKjSiyjvtkmdSodP8pXdjxw+k0nJn_jTy06CQ6VHe3XTn2g@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Cc: Bitcoin Protocol Discussion <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>,
Mike Brooks <f@in.st.capital>
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Floating-Point Nakamoto Consensus
X-BeenThere: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: Bitcoin Protocol Discussion <bitcoin-dev.lists.linuxfoundation.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/options/bitcoin-dev>,
<mailto:bitcoin-dev-request@lists.linuxfoundation.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/>
List-Post: <mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
List-Help: <mailto:bitcoin-dev-request@lists.linuxfoundation.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev>,
<mailto:bitcoin-dev-request@lists.linuxfoundation.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 01 Oct 2020 01:36:52 -0000
Good morning Mike,
> ZmnSCPxj,
>
> The growing tare in growing disagreement continues to divide mining capac=
ity while the network waits for formation of future blocks - you'll never g=
et to complete=C2=A0consensus=C2=A0unless three is a way to avoid ambiguity=
in=C2=A0disagreement,=C2=A0which you have not addressed.=C2=A0 The topic o=
f my discussion is an exploitable condition, your three block plan does not=
add up.
>
> I wrote the exploit before I wrote the paper. It is telling that still no=
one here has refenced the threat model, which is the largest section of th=
e entire 8 page paper.=C2=A0 The security came before the introduction of F=
PNC because security=C2=A0fundamentals=C2=A0is what drives the necessity fo=
r the solution.
>
> The text you are reading right now was delivered using the mailing list m=
anager=C2=A0Majordomo2, which I shelled in 2011 and got a severity metric a=
nd an alert in the DHS newsletter. Correct me if I am wrong, but I bet that=
just of my exploits has probably=C2=A0popped more shells than everyone on =
this thread combined.=C2=A0=C2=A0 Cryptography?=C2=A0 Sure, I'll brag about=
the time I hacked Square Inc. This is actually my current favorite crypto =
exploit=C2=A0=E2=80=94 it was the time I used DKIM signature-malleability t=
o conduct a replay-attack that allowed an adversary to replay another user'=
s transactions an unlimited number of times. After receiving=C2=A0a normal =
payment from another Square user you could empty their account.=C2=A0 This =
was reported ethically and it was a mutual joy to work with such a great te=
am.=C2=A0 Now it is not just impact, but I am also getting the feeling that=
I have collected more CVEs, all this is to say that I'm not new to difficu=
lt vendors.
Argument screens off authority, thus, even if I have no CVEs under this pse=
udonym, argument must still be weighted more highly than any authority you =
may claim.
> To be blunt; some of you on this thread are behaving like a virgin=C2=
=A0reading a trashy love novel and failing to see the point =E2=80=94 Just =
because you aren't excited, doesn't mean that it isn't hot.
>
> The exploit described in this paper was delivered to the Bitcoin-core sec=
urity team on August 4 at 9:36 PM PST.=C2=A0 The industry standard of 90 da=
ys gives you until November 2nd. Now clearly, we need more time. However,=
=C2=A0if the consensus is a rejection, then there shouldn't be any concerns=
with a sensible 90-day disclosure policy.=C2=A0
I am not a member of this security team, and they may have better informati=
on and arguments than I do, in which case, I would defer to them if they ar=
e willing to openly discuss it and I find their arguments compelling.
The attack you describe is:
* Not fixable by floating-point Nakamoto consensus, as such a powerful adve=
rsary can just as easily prevent propagation of a higher-score block.
* Broken by even a single, manually-created connection between both sides o=
f the chain-split.
Regards,
ZmnSCPxj
|
