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
|
Return-Path: <aj@erisian.com.au>
Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org
[172.17.192.35])
by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5F7ED3C8
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Mon, 12 Oct 2015 17:06:43 +0000 (UTC)
X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6
Received: from azure.erisian.com.au (cerulean.erisian.com.au [106.187.51.212])
by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id CD6AA20A
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Mon, 12 Oct 2015 17:06:42 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from aj@azure.erisian.com.au (helo=navy.erisian.com.au)
by azure.erisian.com.au with esmtpsa (Exim 4.84 #2 (Debian))
id 1ZlgYa-0005ti-50 for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Tue, 13 Oct 2015 03:06:41 +1000
Received: by navy.erisian.com.au (sSMTP sendmail emulation);
Tue, 13 Oct 2015 03:06:37 +1000
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 2015 03:06:37 +1000
From: Anthony Towns <aj@erisian.com.au>
To: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
Message-ID: <20151012170637.GA21399@navy>
References: <20151007150014.GA21849@navy> <1444633370859.8a298e9c@Nodemailer>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
In-Reply-To: <1444633370859.8a298e9c@Nodemailer>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.24 (2015-08-30)
X-Spam-Score: -1.9
X-Spam-Score-int: -18
X-Spam-Bar: -
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD,
UNPARSEABLE_RELAY autolearn=ham version=3.3.1
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on
smtp1.linux-foundation.org
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Let's deploy BIP65 CHECKLOCKTIMEVERIFY!
X-BeenThere: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Bitcoin Development 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: Mon, 12 Oct 2015 17:06:43 -0000
On Mon, Oct 12, 2015 at 12:02:51AM -0700, digitsu412 via bitcoin-dev wrote:
> First I think your unsaid assumption about the fragility of a soft
> fork showing incorrect confirmations is dependent on the percentage
> of hash power that didn't upgrade. If using your same numbers this
> was only 5% of the hash power, the attack is effectively not effective
> (u less the attacker knew an exact merchant that was unfortunately on
> the minority of the network.
Actually, just to take this scenario more explicitly...
Say you've got 5% of hashpower running on old software, along with,
say, 1500 nodes; and meanwhile you've got 95% of hashpower running new
software, along with 4000 nodes.
There's still about 750 nodes running 0.9 or 0.8 of 5400 total according
to bitnodes.21.co/nodes, so those numbers seems at least plausible to
me for the first week or two after a soft-fork is activated.
Eventually an old-rules block gets found by the 5% hashpower. The 4000
new nodes and 95% of hashpower ignore it, of course. With 8 random
connections, old nodes should have 92% chance of seeing an old node
as a peer, so I think around ~1300 of them should still be a connected
subgraph, and the old-rules block should get propogated amongst them
(until two new-rules blocks come along and orphan it).
An SPV client with 12 random connections here has 96% chance of having one
of the ~1300 old nodes as a peer, and if so, will see the old-rules block,
that will be orphaned, and may be at risk from double-spends as a result.
So I think even with just 5% hashpower and ~30% of nodes left running
the old version, a "damaging soft fork" still poses a fairly high risk to
someone receiving payments via an SPV client, and trusting transactions
with few confirmations.
Cheers,
aj
|
