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
|
Return-Path: <ZmnSCPxj@protonmail.com>
Received: from smtp4.osuosl.org (smtp4.osuosl.org [IPv6:2605:bc80:3010::137])
by lists.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D60ABC000D
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Tue, 5 Oct 2021 14:41:32 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1])
by smtp4.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B674F40842
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Tue, 5 Oct 2021 14:41:32 +0000 (UTC)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at osuosl.org
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 1.101
X-Spam-Level: *
X-Spam-Status: No, score=1.101 tagged_above=-999 required=5
tests=[BAYES_50=0.8, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1,
DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001,
FROM_LOCAL_NOVOWEL=0.5, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H4=0.001,
RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=0.001, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001]
autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: smtp4.osuosl.org (amavisd-new);
dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=protonmail.com
Received: from smtp4.osuosl.org ([127.0.0.1])
by localhost (smtp4.osuosl.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024)
with ESMTP id lvp2teIUqeUe
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Tue, 5 Oct 2021 14:41:32 +0000 (UTC)
X-Greylist: domain auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.8.0
Received: from mail4.protonmail.ch (mail4.protonmail.ch [185.70.40.27])
by smtp4.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id EBCB440840
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Tue, 5 Oct 2021 14:41:31 +0000 (UTC)
Date: Tue, 05 Oct 2021 14:41:24 +0000
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=protonmail.com;
s=protonmail; t=1633444888;
bh=7rmCjtaJSw+gC3ymZ8HWDX1ISH/SVqZc6ZJpqOGqD0c=;
h=Date:To:From:Reply-To:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:From;
b=sADyCLDTfqk+WEic8a9Al91EjFLln/RqmOYj4cRwz04ALKC9lPK6HPxrJH0O046eR
NkoEDwwIRNf+wSTYrVUYwsWdF8HOVTBeY1Yq2WXaS40tZQV8R911nVYOOUsfQlLX4S
Tl/I6IWHz3ptOPk7pWBSeoK23naEeZpAa64iWDPI=
To: Nathan T Alexander <nta@nathanalexander.net>,
Bitcoin Protocol Discussion <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
From: ZmnSCPxj <ZmnSCPxj@protonmail.com>
Reply-To: ZmnSCPxj <ZmnSCPxj@protonmail.com>
Message-ID: <vcRuCxMO8Ia9VU7JhJtcpea_2vpfUnOSPBJJExuyHfu7j2IQBM7pEonfGIF96RLSpNP5h-SoA3sStOY2Y-wdBHEt6Ymo_Z6z2xfzUljI5Sw=@protonmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <f867f949-9a04-329b-ea1b-26201f46d2ab@nathanalexander.net>
References: <f867f949-9a04-329b-ea1b-26201f46d2ab@nathanalexander.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Question- must every mining rig attempt every
block?
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: Tue, 05 Oct 2021 14:41:33 -0000
Good morning Nathan,
> For purposes of conserving energy, couldn't each mining rig have some
> non-gameable attribute which would be used to calculate if a block would
> be accepted by that rig?
>
> Don't the mining rigs have to be able to identify themselves to the
> network somehow, in order to claim their block reward? Could their
> bitcoin network ID be used as a non-gameable attribute?
They are "identified" by the address that is on the coinbase output.
There is nothing preventing a *single* miner having *multiple* addresses, i=
n much the same way that a *single* HODLer is not prevented from having *mu=
ltiple* addresses.
>
> Essentially a green light / red light system. In order for a block to be
> accepted by the network, it must have all attributes of a successful
> block today, and it must also have come from a rig that had a green light=
.
Since a miner can have multiple addresses, the miners can game this by simp=
ly grinding on *which* of their multiple addresses gets the green light.
That grinding is no more different in quality than grinding the block hash.
Thus, you just move proof-of-work elsewhere and make it harder to see, not =
reduce it.
Worse, *identifying* miners reduces the important anonymity property of min=
ing.
With non-anonymous mining, it is much easier for states to co-opt large min=
es, since they are identifiable, and states can target larger miners.
Thus, miners ***must*** use multiple addresses as a simple protection again=
st state co-option.
>
> Perhaps hash some data from the last successful block, along with the
> miners non-gameable attribute, and if it's below a certain number set by
> algorithm, the miner gets a green light to race to produce a valid block.
The power consumption of proof-of-work ***is not a problem***, it is instea=
d the solution against state co-option.
If you reduce the power consumption, it becomes easier for states to simply=
purchase and co-opt mines and attack the system, since it is easier to mus=
ter the power consumption and outright 51% Bitcoin.
The power consumption is an important security parameter, ***even more impo=
rtant than raw hashes-per-second***, since hashes-per-second will inevitabl=
y rise anyway even with constant power consumption.
It should always remain economically infeasible to 51% Bitcoin, otherwise B=
itcoin will ***die*** and all your HODLings in it.
Regards,
ZmnSCPxj
|
