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
201
202
203
204
205
206
207
208
209
210
211
212
213
214
215
216
|
Received: from sog-mx-2.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.192]
helo=mx.sourceforge.net)
by sfs-ml-3.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76)
(envelope-from <etotheipi@gmail.com>) id 1Sh3CP-0005Z6-F5
for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Tue, 19 Jun 2012 18:30:45 +0000
Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-2.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of gmail.com
designates 209.85.213.47 as permitted sender)
client-ip=209.85.213.47; envelope-from=etotheipi@gmail.com;
helo=mail-yw0-f47.google.com;
Received: from mail-yw0-f47.google.com ([209.85.213.47])
by sog-mx-2.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-MD5:128)
(Exim 4.76) id 1Sh3CO-0008UN-Ng
for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Tue, 19 Jun 2012 18:30:45 +0000
Received: by yhjj56 with SMTP id j56so5258909yhj.34
for <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>;
Tue, 19 Jun 2012 11:30:39 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.236.74.133 with SMTP id x5mr23653316yhd.126.1340130639286;
Tue, 19 Jun 2012 11:30:39 -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 ESMTPS id g4sm82399900yhf.12.2012.06.19.11.30.38
(version=SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Tue, 19 Jun 2012 11:30:38 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <4FE0C538.3090001@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 19 Jun 2012 14:30:16 -0400
From: Alan Reiner <etotheipi@gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux i686 on x86_64;
rv:12.0) Gecko/20120428 Thunderbird/12.0.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Mark Friedenbach <mark@monetize.io>
References: <CAF7tpEyEWCbcB+jSpWOMyeZUBjQ=FbVEC8kLt3j2Yzv3YJOgiA@mail.gmail.com>
<4FE0B7EB.6000100@gmail.com>
<CACh7GpEehHFEJGRTtijgM7UAa2jeEWRKrQo5dym8F_YgXAEhFA@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CACh7GpEehHFEJGRTtijgM7UAa2jeEWRKrQo5dym8F_YgXAEhFA@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
boundary="------------040508030500040107050704"
X-Spam-Score: -0.8 (/)
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
1.0 HTML_MESSAGE BODY: HTML included in message
-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
-0.2 AWL AWL: From: address is in the auto white-list
X-Headers-End: 1Sh3CO-0008UN-Ng
Cc: bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net
Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] Ultimate Blockchain Compression w/
trust-free lite node
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: Tue, 19 Jun 2012 18:30:45 -0000
This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
--------------040508030500040107050704
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
On 06/19/2012 02:18 PM, Mark Friedenbach wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 19, 2012 at 10:33 AM, Alan Reiner <etotheipi@gmail.com
> <mailto:etotheipi@gmail.com>> wrote:
>
> If we were to use a raw trie structure, then we'd have all the above
> issues solved: a trie has the same configuration no matter how
> elements
> are inserted or deleted, and accesses to elements in the tree are
> constant time -- O(1). There is no such thing as an unbalanced trie.
> But overall space-efficiency is an issue.
>
> A PATRICIA tree/trie would be ideal, in my mind, as it also has a
> completely deterministic structure, and is an order-of-magnitude more
> space-efficient. Insert, delete and query times are still O(1).
> However, it is not a trivial implementation. I have occasionally
> looked
> for implementations, but not found any that were satisfactory.
>
>
> No, a trie of any sort is dependent upon distribution of input data
> for balancing. As Peter Todd points out, a malicious actor could
> construct transaction or address hashes in such a way as to grow some
> segment of the trie in an unbalanced fashion. It's not much of an
> attack, but in principle exploitable under particular timing-sensitive
> circumstances.
>
> Self-balancing search trees (KVL, RB, 2-3-4, whatever) don't suffer
> from this problem.
>
> Mark
I was using "unbalanced" to refer to "query time" (and also
insert/delete time). If your trie nodes branch based on the next byte
of your key hash, then the max depth of your trie is 32. Period. No
one can do anything to ever make you do more than 32 hops to
find/insert/delete your data. And if you're using a raw trie, you'll
always use /exactly/ 32 hops regardless of the distribution of the
underlying data. Hence, the trie structure is deterministic
(history-independent) and cannot become unbalanced in terms of access time.
My first concern was that a malicious actor could linearize parts of the
tree and cause access requests to take much longer than log(N) time.
With the trie, that's not only impossible, you're actually accessing in
O(1) time.
However, you are right that disk space can be affected by a malicious
actor. The more branching he can induce, the more branch nodes that are
created to support branches with only one leaf.
--------------040508030500040107050704
Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=UTF-8" http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
On 06/19/2012 02:18 PM, Mark Friedenbach wrote:
<blockquote
cite="mid:CACh7GpEehHFEJGRTtijgM7UAa2jeEWRKrQo5dym8F_YgXAEhFA@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">
<div class="gmail_quote">On Tue, Jun 19, 2012 at 10:33 AM, Alan
Reiner <span dir="ltr"><<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:etotheipi@gmail.com" target="_blank">etotheipi@gmail.com</a>></span>
wrote:<br>
<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0
.8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
If we were to use a raw trie structure, then we'd have all the
above<br>
issues solved: a trie has the same configuration no matter
how elements<br>
are inserted or deleted, and accesses to elements in the tree
are<br>
constant time -- O(1). There is no such thing as an
unbalanced trie.<br>
But overall space-efficiency is an issue.<br>
<br>
A PATRICIA tree/trie would be ideal, in my mind, as it also
has a<br>
completely deterministic structure, and is an
order-of-magnitude more<br>
space-efficient. Insert, delete and query times are still
O(1).<br>
However, it is not a trivial implementation. I have
occasionally looked<br>
for implementations, but not found any that were satisfactory.<br>
</blockquote>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>No, a trie of any sort is dependent upon distribution of
input data for balancing. As <span class="Apple-style-span"
style="border-collapse:collapse;color:rgb(34,34,34);font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13px">Peter
Todd points out, a malicious actor could construct
transaction or address hashes in such a way as to grow some
segment of the trie in an unbalanced fashion. It's not much
of an attack, but in principle exploitable under particular
timing-sensitive circumstances.</span></div>
<div><span class="Apple-style-span"
style="border-collapse:collapse;color:rgb(34,34,34);font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13px"><br>
</span></div>
<div><span class="Apple-style-span"
style="border-collapse:collapse;color:rgb(34,34,34);font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13px">Self-balancing
search trees (KVL, RB, 2-3-4, whatever) don't suffer from
this problem.</span></div>
<div><span class="Apple-style-span"
style="border-collapse:collapse;color:rgb(34,34,34);font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13px"><br>
</span></div>
<div><span class="Apple-style-span"
style="border-collapse:collapse;color:rgb(34,34,34);font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13px">Mark</span></div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
I was using "unbalanced" to refer to "query time" (and also
insert/delete time). If your trie nodes branch based on the next
byte of your key hash, then the max depth of your trie is 32.
Period. No one can do anything to ever make you do more than 32
hops to find/insert/delete your data. And if you're using a raw
trie, you'll always use <i>exactly</i> 32 hops regardless of the
distribution of the underlying data. Hence, the trie structure is
deterministic (history-independent) and cannot become unbalanced in
terms of access time.<br>
<br>
My first concern was that a malicious actor could linearize parts of
the tree and cause access requests to take much longer than log(N)
time. With the trie, that's not only impossible, you're actually
accessing in O(1) time.<br>
<br>
However, you are right that disk space can be affected by a
malicious actor. The more branching he can induce, the more branch
nodes that are created to support branches with only one leaf. <br>
<br>
<br>
</body>
</html>
--------------040508030500040107050704--
|
