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
|
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 4E34EC016F
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Thu, 8 Oct 2020 01:40:01 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1])
by silver.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3ACAE2E0E6
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Thu, 8 Oct 2020 01:40:01 +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 QRNax2+VP78Y
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Thu, 8 Oct 2020 01:39:59 +0000 (UTC)
X-Greylist: domain auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6
Received: from mail-40137.protonmail.ch (mail-40137.protonmail.ch
[185.70.40.137])
by silver.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 40BE32E0DA
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Thu, 8 Oct 2020 01:39:59 +0000 (UTC)
Date: Thu, 08 Oct 2020 01:39:45 +0000
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=protonmail.com;
s=protonmail; t=1602121196;
bh=DrzrQR0tZ3ftilYHpE3MuRZBJf5pb0lJpNrdJNlTsnE=;
h=Date:To:From:Reply-To:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:From;
b=wpp5SEDSqDeHd5+rVlit71/mwxoK2DFW+CjmFbjLjYVnmsUJDXZ4+1gdWuSqlY90R
g6RSeKXt5jj/Puka4/rNKL490sKKsmmZStPT3XMUbK33Ffr/+iUjNIDtsoJZFZym1F
1T/pmf3lNFD8T70uHLU69nQJ8CkvW3IXdZiJJ7KQ=
To: Bitcoin Protocol Discussion <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
From: ZmnSCPxj <ZmnSCPxj@protonmail.com>
Reply-To: ZmnSCPxj <ZmnSCPxj@protonmail.com>
Message-ID: <STSmfzWKGGPx0yJ9ysTPbDw-KpvlBLmr9R5IPDogPw0FRzG0BZ7Bk_NeWiwPUYw6Nhrqkq5DlrmtN9T3vXE83p_JH6LDizMTWZ9MCQSaous=@protonmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CALFqKjTY6d2nQtUe-NyyKJEYcWKEj1mfdQfAzKkB-NRDwYD5JQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CALFqKjTY6d2nQtUe-NyyKJEYcWKEj1mfdQfAzKkB-NRDwYD5JQ@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Progress on Miner Withholding - FPNC
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, 08 Oct 2020 01:40:01 -0000
Good morning all,
>
> Below is a novel discussion=C2=A0on block-withholding=C2=A0attacks and FP=
NC. These are=C2=A0two very simple changes being proposed here that will dr=
amatically=C2=A0impact the network for the better.
>
> But first of all, I'd like to say that the idea for FPNC came out of a co=
nversation=C2=A0with ZmnSCPxj's in regards to=C2=A0re-org stability.=C2=
=A0 When I had proposed blockchain pointers with the PubRef opcode, he took=
the time to explain to me concerns around re-orgs and why it is a bigger p=
roblem than I initially had thought=C2=A0=E2=80=94 and I greatly appreciate=
this detail.=C2=A0 =C2=A0After touching base with ZmnSCPxj and Greg Maxwel=
l there is an overwhelming view that the current problems that face the net=
work outweigh any theoretical ones.
>
> Currently the elephant in the room is the miner withholding attack.=C2=
=A0There is an unintended incentive to hold onto blocks because keeping kno=
wledge of this coinbase private gives a greedy miner more time to calculate=
the next block.=C2=A0 Major mining pools are actively employing this strat=
egy because winning two blocks in a row has a much greater payoff than comm=
on robbery. This unfair advantage=C2=A0happens each time a=C2=A0new block i=
s found, and provides a kind of home-field advantage for large pools, and c=
ontributes to a more centralized network. This odd feature of the bitcoin p=
rotocol provides a material incentive to delay transactions and encourages =
the formation of disagreements. In a sense, withholding is a deception of t=
he computational power of a miner, and by extension a deception of their in=
fluence within the electorate.=C2=A0 In effect, other miners are forced to =
work harder,=C2=A0and when they are successful in finding a 2nd solution of=
the same height=C2=A0=E2=80=94 no one benefits. Disagreement on the bitcoi=
n network is not good for the environment, or for the users, or for honest =
miners, but is ideal for dishonest miners looking for an advantage.
This is my understanding:
The selfish mining attack described above was already presented and known a=
bout **many years** ago, with the solution presented here: https://www.cs.c=
ornell.edu/~ie53/publications/btcProcFC.pdf
The solution was later determined to actually raise the needed threshhold t=
o 33%, not 25% in the paper.
That solution is what is used in the network today.
Implementing floating-point Nakamoto Consensus removes the solution present=
ed in the paper, and therefore risks reintroducing the selfish mining attac=
k.
Therefore, floating-point Nakamoto Consensus is a hard NAK.
Regards,
ZmnSCPxj
|
