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
|
Received: from sog-mx-2.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.192]
helo=mx.sourceforge.net)
by sfs-ml-2.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76)
(envelope-from <mh.in.england@gmail.com>) id 1UO3GW-00031S-4w
for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Fri, 05 Apr 2013 09:49:00 +0000
Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-2.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of gmail.com
designates 209.85.214.175 as permitted sender)
client-ip=209.85.214.175; envelope-from=mh.in.england@gmail.com;
helo=mail-ob0-f175.google.com;
Received: from mail-ob0-f175.google.com ([209.85.214.175])
by sog-mx-2.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128)
(Exim 4.76) id 1UO3GS-000413-ME
for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Fri, 05 Apr 2013 09:49:00 +0000
Received: by mail-ob0-f175.google.com with SMTP id va7so3456567obc.20
for <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>;
Fri, 05 Apr 2013 02:48:51 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.182.112.202 with SMTP id is10mr7019788obb.8.1365155331231;
Fri, 05 Apr 2013 02:48:51 -0700 (PDT)
Sender: mh.in.england@gmail.com
Received: by 10.76.162.198 with HTTP; Fri, 5 Apr 2013 02:48:51 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <CAKaEYhLqnzrhdJNTSBccDA68Mb-hUnaZaCa9Gn43FuVpa410sg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAKaEYhLqnzrhdJNTSBccDA68Mb-hUnaZaCa9Gn43FuVpa410sg@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 5 Apr 2013 11:48:51 +0200
X-Google-Sender-Auth: mPoyg6MkQSZHanZyFfFxBQNue4g
Message-ID: <CANEZrP3S7b+uh2LW4vH=53opopLJRmmJ-_Uad6yEQxZ3kHW47A@mail.gmail.com>
From: Mike Hearn <mike@plan99.net>
To: Melvin Carvalho <melvincarvalho@gmail.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=089e015369be94d9e504d999fe0b
X-Spam-Score: -0.5 (/)
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 FREEMAIL_FROM Sender email is commonly abused enduser mail provider
(mh.in.england[at]gmail.com)
-0.0 SPF_PASS SPF: sender matches SPF record
1.0 HTML_MESSAGE BODY: HTML included in message
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: 1UO3GS-000413-ME
Cc: Bitcoin Dev <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>
Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] A mining pool at 46%
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, 05 Apr 2013 09:49:00 -0000
--089e015369be94d9e504d999fe0b
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
51% isn't a magic number - it's possible to do double spends against
confirmed transactions before that. If Michael wanted to do so, with the
current setup he could, and that's obviously rather different to how
Satoshi envisioned mining working.
However, you're somewhat right in the sense that it's a self-defeating
attack. If the pool owner went bad, he could pull it off once, but the act
of doing so would leave a permanent record and many of the people mining on
his pool would leave. As he doesn't own the actual mining hardware, he then
wouldn't be able to do it again.
There are also other mining protocols that allow people to pool together,
without p2pool and without the pool operator being able to centrally pick
which transactions go into the block. However I'm not sure they're widely
deployed at the moment. It'd be better if people didn't cluster around big
mining pools, but I think p2pool still has a lot of problems dealing with
FPGA/ASIC hardware and it hasn't been growing for a long time.
On Fri, Apr 5, 2013 at 11:30 AM, Melvin Carvalho
<melvincarvalho@gmail.com>wrote:
> There was some chat on IRC about a mining pool reaching 46%
>
> http://blockchain.info/pools
>
> What's the risk of a 51% attack.
>
> I suggested that the pool itself is decentralized so you could not launch
> one
>
> On IRC people were saying that the pool owner gets to choose what goes in
> the block
>
> Surely with random non colliding nonces, it would be almost impossible to
> coordinate a 51% even by the owner
>
> Someone came back and said that creating random numbers on a GPU is hard.
> But what about just creating ONE random number and incrementing from there
> ...
>
> It would be great to know if this is a threat or a non issue
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Minimize network downtime and maximize team effectiveness.
> Reduce network management and security costs.Learn how to hire
> the most talented Cisco Certified professionals. Visit the
> Employer Resources Portal
> http://www.cisco.com/web/learning/employer_resources/index.html
> _______________________________________________
> Bitcoin-development mailing list
> Bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development
>
>
--089e015369be94d9e504d999fe0b
Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
<div dir=3D"ltr">51% isn't a magic number - it's possible to do dou=
ble spends against confirmed transactions before that. If Michael wanted to=
do so, with the current setup he could, and that's obviously rather di=
fferent to how Satoshi envisioned mining working.<div>
<br></div><div style>However, you're somewhat right in the sense that i=
t's a self-defeating attack. If the pool owner went bad, he could pull =
it off once, but the act of doing so would leave a permanent record and man=
y of the people mining on his pool would leave. As he doesn't own the a=
ctual mining hardware, he then wouldn't be able to do it again.</div>
<div style><br></div><div style>There are also other mining protocols that =
allow people to pool together, without p2pool and without the pool operator=
being able to centrally pick which transactions go into the block. However=
I'm not sure they're widely deployed at the moment. It'd be be=
tter if people didn't cluster around big mining pools, but I think p2po=
ol still has a lot of problems dealing with FPGA/ASIC hardware and it hasn&=
#39;t been growing for a long time.</div>
</div><div class=3D"gmail_extra"><br><br><div class=3D"gmail_quote">On Fri,=
Apr 5, 2013 at 11:30 AM, Melvin Carvalho <span dir=3D"ltr"><<a href=3D"=
mailto:melvincarvalho@gmail.com" target=3D"_blank">melvincarvalho@gmail.com=
</a>></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 dir=3D"ltr"><div><div><div><div><div>Th=
ere was some chat on IRC about a mining pool reaching 46%<br><br><a href=3D=
"http://blockchain.info/pools" target=3D"_blank">http://blockchain.info/poo=
ls</a><br>
<br></div>What's the risk of a 51% attack.<br>
<br></div>I suggested that the pool itself is decentralized so you could no=
t launch one<br><br>On IRC people were saying that the pool owner gets to c=
hoose what goes in the block<br><br></div>Surely with random non colliding =
nonces, it would be almost impossible to coordinate a 51% even by the owner=
<br>
<br></div>Someone came back and said that creating random numbers on a GPU =
is hard.=C2=A0 But what about just creating ONE random number and increment=
ing from there ...<br><br></div><div>It would be great to know if this is a=
threat or a non issue<br>
</div></div>
<br>-----------------------------------------------------------------------=
-------<br>
Minimize network downtime and maximize team effectiveness.<br>
Reduce network management and security costs.Learn how to hire<br>
the most talented Cisco Certified professionals. Visit the<br>
Employer Resources Portal<br>
<a href=3D"http://www.cisco.com/web/learning/employer_resources/index.html"=
target=3D"_blank">http://www.cisco.com/web/learning/employer_resources/ind=
ex.html</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>
<br></blockquote></div><br></div>
--089e015369be94d9e504d999fe0b--
|
