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
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
184
185
186
187
188
189
190
191
192
193
194
195
196
197
198
199
200
|
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 <pete@petertodd.org>) id 1V1vbE-0000fl-Jv
for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Wed, 24 Jul 2013 09:43:12 +0000
Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-1.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of petertodd.org
designates 62.13.149.75 as permitted sender)
client-ip=62.13.149.75; envelope-from=pete@petertodd.org;
helo=outmail149075.authsmtp.net;
Received: from outmail149075.authsmtp.net ([62.13.149.75])
by sog-mx-1.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76)
id 1V1vbA-0006u2-V9 for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Wed, 24 Jul 2013 09:43:12 +0000
Received: from mail-c232.authsmtp.com (mail-c232.authsmtp.com [62.13.128.232])
by punt14.authsmtp.com (8.14.2/8.14.2/) with ESMTP id r6O9h0lc082715;
Wed, 24 Jul 2013 09:43:00 GMT
Received: from savin (76-10-178-109.dsl.teksavvy.com [76.10.178.109])
(authenticated bits=128)
by mail.authsmtp.com (8.14.2/8.14.2/) with ESMTP id r6O9gtWS055498
(version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO);
Wed, 24 Jul 2013 10:42:58 +0100 (BST)
Date: Wed, 24 Jul 2013 05:42:55 -0400
From: Peter Todd <pete@petertodd.org>
To: Tier Nolan <tier.nolan@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <20130724094255.GB12568@savin>
References: <CAE-z3OX+Uzw_diW97yKWGzVMBFZHq2t+w15jNSdGMGqwyJ65yQ@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha256;
protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="RASg3xLB4tUQ4RcS"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <CAE-z3OX+Uzw_diW97yKWGzVMBFZHq2t+w15jNSdGMGqwyJ65yQ@mail.gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15)
X-Server-Quench: 6ca2e85d-f445-11e2-b10b-0025903375e2
X-AuthReport-Spam: If SPAM / abuse - report it at:
http://www.authsmtp.com/abuse
X-AuthRoute: OCd2Yg0TA1ZNQRgX IjsJECJaVQIpKltL GxAVKBZePFsRUQkR
aAdMdAYUEkAYAgsB AmUbWlReVF97XGs7 bAxPbAVDY01GQQRq
WVdMSlVNFUsqB2MI UVp5MRl3cgFPcDBx YUVrWj5dDxV4IE54
FlMCEWkDeGZhPWIC AkFYJR5UcAFPdx9G aVd6AXFDAzANdhES
HhM4ODE3eDlSNilR RRkIIFQOdA4nHyUg XREIACkuG0JNQyIs
ZyQBFRYcEU8dP18p WQAA
X-Authentic-SMTP: 61633532353630.1019:706
X-AuthFastPath: 0 (Was 255)
X-AuthSMTP-Origin: 76.10.178.109/587
X-AuthVirus-Status: No virus detected - but ensure you scan with your own
anti-virus system.
X-Spam-Score: -1.5 (-)
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 SPF_PASS SPF: sender matches SPF record
X-Headers-End: 1V1vbA-0006u2-V9
Cc: bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net
Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] Distributing low POW headers
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: Wed, 24 Jul 2013 09:43:12 -0000
--RASg3xLB4tUQ4RcS
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
On Tue, Jul 23, 2013 at 12:27:03PM +0100, Tier Nolan wrote:
> I was thinking about a change to the rules for distinguishing between for=
ks
> and maybe a BIP..
Please provide equations and data justifying the 'magic constants' in
this proposal.
Currently we do not relay blocks to peers if they conflict with blocks
in the best known chain. What changes exactly are you proposing to that
behavior?
> *Summary*
>=20
> - Low POW headers should be broadcast by the network
>=20
> If a header has more than 1/64 of the POW of a block, it should be
> broadcast. This provides information on which fork is getting most of the
> hashing power.
>=20
> - Miners should use the header information to decide on longest chain
>=20
> The fork selection rule for miners should be biased towards staying on the
> fork that has the most hashing power.
>=20
> This means that they might keep hashing on a fork that is 1-2 blocks
> shorter.
>=20
> If most miners follow the rule, then it is the best strategy for other
> miners to also follow this rule.
>=20
> - Advantages
>=20
> This lowers the probability of natural and malicious reversals.
>=20
> *Distributing low POW headers*
>=20
> First block header messages that have more than 1/64 of the standard POW
> requirements would be forwarded.
>=20
> This means the client needs to maintain a short term view of the entire
> header tree.
>=20
> if (header extends header tree) {
> if (header meets full POW) {
> add to header tree;
> forward to peers;
> check if any blocks in storage now extend the header tree
> } else {
> if (header meets POW / 64) {
> forward to peers;
> }
> } else {
> if (header meets POW) {
> add to orphan header storage
> }
> }
>=20
> The storage could be limited and headers could be discarded after a while.
>=20
> This has the extra advantage that it informs clients of forks that are
> receiving hashing power.
>=20
> This could be linked to a protocol version to prevent disconnects due to
> invalid header messages.
>=20
> *Determining the longest chain*
>=20
> Each link would get extra credit for headers received.
>=20
> Assume there are 2 forks starting at block A as the fork point.
>=20
> A(63) <- B(72) <- C(37) <- D(58)
>=20
> and
>=20
> A(63) <- B'(6) <- C'(9) <- D'(4) <- E(7) <- F(6)
>=20
> The numbers in brackets are the number of low POW headers received that
> have those blocks as parent.
>=20
> The new rule is that the POW for a block is equal to
>=20
> POW * (1 + (headers / 16))
>=20
> Only headers within <some threshold> of the end of the (shorter) chain
> count. However, in most cases, that doesn't matter since the fork point
> will act as the start point. As long as miners keep headers for 30-40
> blocks, they will likely have all headers back to any reasonable fork poi=
nt.
>=20
> This means that the top fork is considered longer, since it has much more
> headers, even though it has 2 less blocks.
>=20
> If 75% of the miners follow this rule, then the top fork will eventually
> catch up and win, so it is in the interests of the other 25% to follow the
> rule too.
>=20
> Even if there isn't complete agreement on headers received, the fork that
> is getting the most hashing will naturally gain most of the headers, so
> ties will be broken quickly.
--=20
'peter'[:-1]@petertodd.org
000000000000001e1c3393788031c4e427b67cfd1b5e90a3b0de4fff094b2894
--RASg3xLB4tUQ4RcS
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc"
Content-Description: Digital signature
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux)
iQEcBAEBCAAGBQJR76GeAAoJECSBQD2l8JH7hAIH/icO10VXLr8y0Z8xczfA/vFB
/OkM7/c5DuowwNHjAdPHAS5eyIsWuOaeP4UQ6u++x2GPZr8Z5rQSsQSTelMWzo/W
ec5n2gIQ5EJuBMMY57Txcuy8H7aL5iJruWWXVfqfVDkILRP9HZdJsK7IzKiy94Af
6PBAQ3cMMt7EPVJMvztS90vZKLPRd+HvNMCpxByr+oFA5FrguOwk6VTPOOHUjjk2
dED5GOueHVhV8TpJoEacJOXeGT/T1zFvVZw6ZMi3QGIF8sHOq5wnGv6m3/lbOhWY
YzRpYB8QxeMG6tXXg5M+4ZX8fHI1VT0Z/7MWgjo9bMNJwBc6dqyhPzSxIj/0QDY=
=J0Cf
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--RASg3xLB4tUQ4RcS--
|
