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
|
Received: from sog-mx-3.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.193]
helo=mx.sourceforge.net)
by sfs-ml-1.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76)
(envelope-from <etotheipi@gmail.com>) id 1WoMSe-0004FO-DF
for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Sun, 25 May 2014 00:38:48 +0000
Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-3.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of gmail.com
designates 209.85.216.179 as permitted sender)
client-ip=209.85.216.179; envelope-from=etotheipi@gmail.com;
helo=mail-qc0-f179.google.com;
Received: from mail-qc0-f179.google.com ([209.85.216.179])
by sog-mx-3.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128)
(Exim 4.76) id 1WoMSd-0004Lo-Ik
for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Sun, 25 May 2014 00:38:48 +0000
Received: by mail-qc0-f179.google.com with SMTP id r5so1837804qcx.38
for <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>;
Sat, 24 May 2014 17:38:42 -0700 (PDT)
X-Received: by 10.224.54.68 with SMTP id p4mr19494242qag.47.1400978322067;
Sat, 24 May 2014 17:38:42 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [192.168.1.85] (c-76-111-96-126.hsd1.md.comcast.net.
[76.111.96.126])
by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id a42sm4986902qge.35.2014.05.24.17.38.41
for <multiple recipients>
(version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128);
Sat, 24 May 2014 17:38:41 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <53813B91.2070309@gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 24 May 2014 20:38:41 -0400
From: Alan Reiner <etotheipi@gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64;
rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.5.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Gregory Maxwell <gmaxwell@gmail.com>
References: <CAOXABZohe93SSRm1FN5ai2H97eBJV2j+LAjA-39YAaNmX=ep0Q@mail.gmail.com> <CAAS2fgSJh83YEZjRfL81sKjC=nSKHtWT1qzS0evLJ9Gy6qdA1w@mail.gmail.com> <CAOXABZoOnYSRf0Ktqxh8dx20Zi=E5gkp-8-C3-0ECudK=q05uA@mail.gmail.com> <53813391.7040503@gmail.com>
<CAAS2fgRSvbUdB80vQOvSBfCckzPASkw6wNzqZUk-h2pWiY8srg@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAAS2fgRSvbUdB80vQOvSBfCckzPASkw6wNzqZUk-h2pWiY8srg@mail.gmail.com>
X-Enigmail-Version: 1.6
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Spam-Score: -1.6 (-)
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
(etotheipi[at]gmail.com)
-0.0 SPF_PASS SPF: sender matches SPF record
-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: 1WoMSd-0004Lo-Ik
Cc: Bitcoin Development <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>
Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] Cut-through propagation of 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: Sun, 25 May 2014 00:38:48 -0000
On 05/24/2014 08:14 PM, Gregory Maxwell wrote:
> On Sat, May 24, 2014 at 5:04 PM, Alan Reiner <etotheipi@gmail.com> wrote:
>> I think the most important change is modifying the way Bitcoin Core
>> prioritizes blocks. Right now it uses the first full block verified.
>> Instead, it should consider the first valid header received as highest
>> priority, but only mine on it once it has done full verification of the
> This directly opens an attack where as soon as you find a block you
> announce the header to the world and then you delay announcing the
> block content. You can continue to mine on the block but no one else
> can (or alternatively they break their rule and risk extending an
> invalid block— bad news for SPV wallets)— then when you find a
> successor block or someone else finds a competing block you
> immediately announce the content.
>
> It basically means that you can always delay announcing a block and be
> sure that doing so doesn't deprive you of your winning position.
>
>
Would this not be solved by putting a expiration on application of this
logic? For instance, if you haven't received the full new block within
5-10 seconds (perhaps adjusted based on local bandwidth), then the
header-received time is ignored. Or is this too hacky? I suppose this
is exactly what Ashley is trying to solve, she's just already made a few
more leaps forward in the design process than I have. I'll stop
derailing it.
|
