path: root/45/72576c16b52712ef46e3bf0f080300aa3d0488

Return-Path: <m@ib.tc>
Received: from silver.osuosl.org (smtp3.osuosl.org [140.211.166.136])
 by lists.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8D4C5C0051
 for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
 Thu,  8 Oct 2020 16:32:40 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1])
 by silver.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6F4AE20423
 for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
 Thu,  8 Oct 2020 16:32:40 +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 2LSqfUjFkLeg
 for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
 Thu,  8 Oct 2020 16:32:39 +0000 (UTC)
X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6
Received: from mail-wm1-f46.google.com (mail-wm1-f46.google.com
 [209.85.128.46])
 by silver.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id ED26D2038A
 for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
 Thu,  8 Oct 2020 16:32:38 +0000 (UTC)
Received: by mail-wm1-f46.google.com with SMTP id v12so7173339wmh.3
 for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
 Thu, 08 Oct 2020 09:32:38 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=ib.tc; s=google;
 h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to
 :cc; bh=5VL02bmkqVbYMM1VsFypG142rEEU146GXMifqlmd8bM=;
 b=DttNaS9x8Kt7IMIiD9Qu12I1Pzm4Q6awX8kLOA/7UOafxDrn7avwKlPqFT+5D6OO62
 XWZWsZlJoM/jeFOqSpz1CPoqvPMzdH3fIbVnNfHmfd9jTcYt8ugZ1MFGKa5KJN9gisdS
 JNYHZNT76dufuujHGspoYHYzrCju4SV5FFpL4cYCh7u++ZZLJX+jjvxEVKaaeWFKlLHr
 OjQYDMmUeGuEjwkbo26OMMGiK6HXk8GKb3LdGKDqBmXRR5eudClwnMboE54Huqw6pmkC
 8gRdMI5099lMRlyhQgc++zAbq4ISxjd4AGiVjJJADD0a4p1WeY7kk6euO4LcUfoTRuQG
 n8jw==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
 d=1e100.net; s=20161025;
 h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date
 :message-id:subject:to:cc;
 bh=5VL02bmkqVbYMM1VsFypG142rEEU146GXMifqlmd8bM=;
 b=S2JLBxW8u3SnTPlbDt4P2x9aMN8K7Y2t1SRCihzVpTGfacj1UrObvZZ+YBYqizzPpl
 1RCBVgE/YaKbEVePNQbRe7RDc+bzEJyiQgIN3e3TJQyqITDLsyoUVqmcrWFjEl+PK/pw
 6uEu01xOiC6gKU8vQOPo2i8+QmzqBtS7RAlyXDyMlVUlQt6mJsLLPU7jSWXaHpeQS9S+
 89jpkbJvKEpwLFhGU9d+0xr/DmaJqAjB3kQ2/NltKnW0pqvG0Gp+3+vQK4+NFiWY+0H2
 MrCGWbU7brXQeuRL11O4pE/V59DedEp15N6isX37cIo90Nn2pIw+qCqF2vzswtHnLSUP
 LPTg==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM530t8igDIPv+iMurHO0Ry7C9o8TwAXaa6xR9Mk2Hw/wXkg5Xb9R4
 MNVMF3q9dD7NwKp3dXZiuQi+ExQnt3n0jSvoifylsA==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJzu3Ph0G40YM0htjDXjmNOL/gVYLkEpbmO2VSbOmUVXwOBGlNLbLOPfUDvyOjeRVKZk442vZytGv78XDFWj1bg=
X-Received: by 2002:a1c:f608:: with SMTP id w8mr10290513wmc.161.1602174757370; 
 Thu, 08 Oct 2020 09:32:37 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <CALFqKjTY6d2nQtUe-NyyKJEYcWKEj1mfdQfAzKkB-NRDwYD5JQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <rhkjkcbglvbiQpSVK8NA0jUpRqfLj4zNnGiV0AWxcALnyJF5vHqEtw1Jf-GAq9yfjrnPSXV_p9SPDZgjoEaVIj4w6tJMbhhrQ5Xoyp7Us_I=@wuille.net>
In-Reply-To: <rhkjkcbglvbiQpSVK8NA0jUpRqfLj4zNnGiV0AWxcALnyJF5vHqEtw1Jf-GAq9yfjrnPSXV_p9SPDZgjoEaVIj4w6tJMbhhrQ5Xoyp7Us_I=@wuille.net>
From: Mike Brooks <m@ib.tc>
Date: Thu, 8 Oct 2020 17:16:40 -0700
Message-ID: <CALFqKjTOKAE=zh6EZEzK+Y1xdJiy_F33S43=dryJv9oKWG02NQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Pieter Wuille <bitcoin-dev@wuille.net>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="00000000000048172a05b12b6145"
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Thu, 08 Oct 2020 16:44:55 +0000
Cc: Bitcoin Protocol Discussion <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
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 16:32:40 -0000

--00000000000048172a05b12b6145
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Pieter,

You are correct.

And also, I did prove what I set out to prove. The code provided privately
to the security team will in fact consume 99% of the CPU, which means it
does have an effect on the electorate.  It is true the node still
stubbornly passes messages, but I would argue that this is still very much
a problem that would concern operators, and perhaps the threshold for a
patch is much too high.  A layered security system like what is found in
bitcoin necessitates an attack chain.  The `getdata` message is an implicit
information disclosure that allows for the identification of dissenting
nodes.   As ZmnSCPxj pointed out, block mixing will give preemption at most
67% of the network, and the remaining dissenting nodes can be quelled by
maxing out their processing power.  All of this can be used together to
make sure that a withheld block becomes the prevailing solution.

FPNC rebalances incentives to serve the interests of the network, and
fundamentally resolves a class of abuses that reshape the electorate.  FPNC
will produce a more deceliterized and fair network than "first seen."

Cheers,
Mike

On Wed, Oct 7, 2020 at 5:12 PM Pieter Wuille <bitcoin-dev@wuille.net> wrote=
:

> On Wednesday, October 7, 2020 1:31 PM, Mike Brooks via bitcoin-dev <
> bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
>
> But first of all, I'd like to say that the idea for FPNC came out of a
> conversation with ZmnSCPxj's in regards to re-org stability.  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 problem than=
 I
> initially had thought =E2=80=94 and I greatly appreciate this detail.   A=
fter
> touching base with ZmnSCPxj and Greg Maxwell there is an overwhelming vie=
w
> that the current problems that face the network outweigh any theoretical
> ones.
>
>
> Greg Maxwell isn't on this list, but assuming this is about the conversio=
n
> you've had on Bitcoin Core's security disclosure list, I believe this is =
a
> misrepresentation. The discussion has been mostly around a DoS attack
> report which turned out to be a mistake.
>
> Cheers,
>
> --
> Pieter
>
>
>

--00000000000048172a05b12b6145
Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<div dir=3D"ltr">Pieter,<div><br></div><div>You are correct.</div><div><br>=
</div><div>And also, I did prove what I set out to prove. The code provided=
 privately to the security team will in fact consume 99% of the CPU, which =
means it does have an effect on the electorate.=C2=A0 It is true the node s=
till stubbornly passes messages, but I would argue that this is still very =
much a=C2=A0problem that would concern operators, and perhaps the threshold=
 for a patch is much too high.=C2=A0 A layered security system like what is=
 found in bitcoin necessitates an attack chain.=C2=A0 The `getdata` message=
 is an implicit information disclosure that allows for the identification o=
f dissenting nodes.=C2=A0 =C2=A0As ZmnSCPxj pointed out, block mixing will =
give preemption=C2=A0at most 67% of the network, and the remaining=C2=A0dis=
senting nodes can be quelled=C2=A0by maxing out their processing power.=C2=
=A0 All of this can be used together to make sure that a withheld block bec=
omes the prevailing solution.</div><div><br></div><div>FPNC rebalances ince=
ntives to serve the interests of the network, and fundamentally resolves a =
class of abuses that reshape the electorate.=C2=A0 FPNC will produce a more=
 deceliterized and fair network than &quot;first seen.&quot;</div><div><br>=
</div><div>Cheers,</div><div>Mike</div></div><br><div class=3D"gmail_quote"=
><div dir=3D"ltr" class=3D"gmail_attr">On Wed, Oct 7, 2020 at 5:12 PM Piete=
r Wuille &lt;<a href=3D"mailto:bitcoin-dev@wuille.net">bitcoin-dev@wuille.n=
et</a>&gt; wrote:<br></div><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margi=
n:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex=
"><div>On Wednesday, October 7, 2020 1:31 PM, Mike Brooks via bitcoin-dev &=
lt;<a href=3D"mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org" target=3D"_blan=
k">bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org</a>&gt; wrote:<br></div><div> <br>=
</div><blockquote type=3D"cite"><div dir=3D"ltr"><div dir=3D"auto"><div dir=
=3D"ltr"><div>But first of all, I&#39;d like to say that the idea for FPNC =
came out of a conversation=C2=A0with ZmnSCPxj&#39;s in regards to=C2=A0re-o=
rg 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 problem than I initially had thought=C2=A0=E2=80=94 and I gr=
eatly appreciate this detail.=C2=A0 =C2=A0After touching base with ZmnSCPxj=
 and Greg Maxwell there is an overwhelming view that the current problems t=
hat face the network outweigh any theoretical ones.<br></div></div></div></=
div></blockquote><div><br></div><table><tbody><tr><td>Greg Maxwell isn&#39;=
t on this list, but assuming this is about the conversion you&#39;ve had on=
 Bitcoin Core&#39;s security disclosure list, I believe this is a misrepres=
entation. The discussion has been mostly around a DoS attack report which t=
urned out to be a mistake.<br><br>Cheers,<br><br>-- <br>Pieter<br><br></td>=
</tr></tbody></table><div><br></div></blockquote></div>

--00000000000048172a05b12b6145--