path: root/57/128b05ce280140f95d32983909ded9f006fcb4

Return-Path: <da2ce7@gmail.com>
Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org
	[172.17.192.35])
	by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1A9E5B6B
	for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
	Fri, 26 May 2017 08:02:33 +0000 (UTC)
X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6
Received: from mail-lf0-f52.google.com (mail-lf0-f52.google.com
	[209.85.215.52])
	by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 311B113D
	for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
	Fri, 26 May 2017 08:02:32 +0000 (UTC)
Received: by mail-lf0-f52.google.com with SMTP id h4so2098588lfj.3
	for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
	Fri, 26 May 2017 01:02:32 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025;
	h=mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc
	:content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to;
	bh=zvlOGkcHJ7MfsNDUOUYI39qXNW8MC7F8EOwmcded0cY=;
	b=keZMxFCuHBljYoyqDzalrU1mrr6qut36nz+OfAqErGHGQxF8XKzweC8AdDHIcDxFT4
	dnmSvqcPomkZSQqHELgY/6RHa7LYhZN0A/5bif/VnYn+BgJEfeZaVbPALVphVxg6xtZl
	evGguRM2MxFPvv2NmFj+9kRqZEpBp0B9PYIy3tjg6cqi6EKlTgp3LzD5CdT5MAnbHQO6
	gV9TUMxa8xIbq8O48mpk51M7n08MP0P1NRcUJKC31ngH53a2EU8Ly8Wyu5ap5rqYb70O
	bYQD82hfrNCgyOmdvoxb0VfMo7n3N1ZqGgZe/AW/oDh6D1EbPaI/kHPJ/+8PKZ+MRf7D
	qKyg==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
	d=1e100.net; s=20161025;
	h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc
	:content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to;
	bh=zvlOGkcHJ7MfsNDUOUYI39qXNW8MC7F8EOwmcded0cY=;
	b=mAufoJptR6YMNUHCvPysUM/JZfGBRSUy3uGZJC2hwGibFUVS98PGwEJoL/dsN5cCYu
	Nk54LelTJ/SFPkgxeA08HEYpn45bFD1AJcUBwIAej2nRC27cjd4p2u61hEkNz8+7d9B8
	KXGPqM0cwn/hkqOk9hUQ9KcmdW8zMqeh5TQ5DvIXqiZCiuNAzvt/mN/hE4TzvIAsau/6
	k5JdmwWDjuCXnM2vfXKsyTMDiEipDw3Gy/0JZ+qEdZCOdyAbEGEwVAzmI/gNS/O+aqNV
	0iH/oo/vp4v/6Lq0+VpFB+d4+vYNJr/2wgFECQmOD6pkbKkzFeLqtL71yy8luXDAIJnn
	pMHw==
X-Gm-Message-State: AODbwcDwjQjUBxKxr9iahIKuxq20HEXFJu+2hWJVhekeYJenOmhCbmzB
	MRd2mnT5rt089g==
X-Received: by 10.25.22.213 with SMTP id 82mr240431lfw.46.1495785750341;
	Fri, 26 May 2017 01:02:30 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [192.168.1.73] (37-145-225-221.broadband.corbina.ru.
	[37.145.225.221])
	by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id u18sm27460lff.10.2017.05.26.01.02.28
	(version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128);
	Fri, 26 May 2017 01:02:28 -0700 (PDT)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 10.3 \(3273\))
From: Cameron Garnham <da2ce7@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAFmyj8zNkPj3my3CLzkXdpJ1xkD0GQk8ODg09qYnnj_ONGUtsQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 26 May 2017 11:02:27 +0300
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <2E6BB6FA-65FF-497F-8AEA-4CC8655BAE69@gmail.com>
References: <D0299438-E848-4696-B323-8D0E810AE491@gmail.com>
	<CAFmyj8zNkPj3my3CLzkXdpJ1xkD0GQk8ODg09qYnnj_ONGUtsQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Andreas M. Antonopoulos" <andreas@antonopoulos.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3273)
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.2 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED,
	DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,FREEMAIL_ENVFROM_END_DIGIT,FREEMAIL_FROM,
	RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE,RCVD_IN_SORBS_SPAM autolearn=no version=3.3.1
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on
	smtp1.linux-foundation.org
Cc: Bitcoin Protocol Discussion <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Emergency Deployment of SegWit as a partial
 mitigation of CVE-2017-9230
X-BeenThere: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
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: Fri, 26 May 2017 08:02:33 -0000

Thank you for your reply Andreas,

I can assure you that I have many motivations for activating SegWit.

Before studding ASICBOOST I wanted to activate SegWit as it is a =
wonderful upgrade for Bitcoin. It seems to me that virtually the entire =
Bitcoin Ecosystem agrees with me.  Except for around 67% of the mining =
hash-rate who very conspicuously refuse to signal for it=E2=80=99s =
activation.=20

So, I started searching for the motivations of such a large amount of =
the mining hash-rate holding a position that isn=E2=80=99t at-all =
represented in the wider Bitcoin Community. My study of ASICBOOST lead =
to a =E2=80=98bingo=E2=80=99 moment:  If one assumes that the 67% of the =
hash rate that refuse to signal for SegWit are using ASICBOOST. The =
entire picture of this political stalemate became much more =
understandable.

This only strengthened my resolve to activate SegWit: not only is SegWit =
great, it partially mitigates a very serious security vulnerability.

This is why I call into question why you would suggest:

=E2=80=9CThis proposal is unnecessarily conflating two contentious =
issues and will attract criticism of self serving motivation.=E2=80=9D

1. I am not conflating the issues.  I would argue that very fact that =
SegWit has not been activated yet is directly because of CVE-2017-9230.
2. I have no reason to believe that SegWit is contentious, except for =
the attackers who it would frustrate.
3. I have no negative responses to my endeavours to get ASICBOOST as =
regarded as a legitimate security vulnerability.  This would suggest =
that it is not contentious in the wider technical community.

If SegWit is NOT contentious within the technical community and it is =
NOT contentious to regard CVE-2017-9230 as a credible security =
vulnerability. Then using it as partial security fix for a security =
vulnerability SHOULD NOT be contentious.

If you believe that SegWit is contentious within the technical =
community.  Or you believe CVE-2017-9230 should not be regarded as a =
credible security vulnerability. Then I would logically agree with you =
that we should separate the issues so that we may gain consensus. =
However, I just don=E2=80=99t see this as the case.

Cameron.


> On 26 May 2017, at 09:52 , Andreas M. Antonopoulos =
<andreas@antonopoulos.com> wrote:
>=20
> I rarely post here, out of respect to the mailing list. But since my =
name was mentioned...=20
>=20
> I much prefer Gregory Maxwell's proposal to defuse covert ASICBOOST =
(only) with a segwit-like commitment to the coinbase which does not =
obligate miners to signal Segwit or implement Segwit, thus disarming any =
suspicion that the issue is being exploited only to activate Segwit.
>=20
> This proposal is unnecessarily conflating two contentious issues and =
will attract criticism of self serving motivation.
>=20
> Politicising CVE  is damaging to the long term bitcoin development and =
to its security. Not claiming that is the intent here, but the damage is =
done by the mere appearance of motive.=20
>=20
>=20
>=20
> On May 26, 2017 16:30, "Cameron Garnham via bitcoin-dev" =
<bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
> Hello Bitcoin-Dev,
>=20
> CVE-2017-9230 (1) (2), or commonly known as =E2=80=98ASICBOOST=E2=80=99 =
is a severe (3) (4) and actively exploited (5) security vulnerability.
>=20
> To learn more about this vulnerability please read Jeremy Rubin=E2=80=99=
s detailed report:
> http://www.mit.edu/~jlrubin//public/pdfs/Asicboost.pdf
>=20
> Andreas Antonopoulos has an excellent presentation on why asicboost is =
dangerous:
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Dt6jJDD2Aj8k
>=20
> In decisions on the #bitcoin-core-dev IRC channel; It was proposed, =
without negative feedback, that SegWit be used as a partial-mitigation =
of CVE-2017-9230.
>=20
> SegWit partially mitigates asicboost with the common reasonable =
assumption that any block that doesn=E2=80=99t include a witness commit =
in it's coinbase transaction was mined using covert asicboost.  Making =
the use of covert asicboost far more conspicuous.
>=20
> It was also proposed that this partial mitigation should be quickly =
strengthened via another soft-fork that makes the inclusion of witness =
commits mandatory, without negative feedback.
>=20
> The security trade-offs of deploying a partial-mitigation to =
CVE-2017-9230 quickly vs more slowly but more conservatively is under =
intense debate.  The author of this post has a strong preference to the =
swiftest viable option.
>=20
> Cameron.
>=20
>=20
> (1) CVE Entry:
> https://cve.mitre.org/cgi-bin/cvename.cgi?name=3D+CVE-2017-9230
>=20
> (2) Announcement of CVE to Mailing List:
> =
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2017-May/014416.ht=
ml
>=20
> (3) Discussion of the perverse incentives created by 'ASICBOOST' by =
Ryan Grant:
>  =
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2017-May/014352.ht=
ml
>=20
> (4) Discussion of ASICBOOST's non-independent PoW calculation by Tier =
Nolan:
>  =
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2017-May/014351.ht=
ml
>=20
> (5) Evidence of Active Exploit by Gregory Maxwell:
> =
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2017-April/013996.=
html
>=20
> _______________________________________________
> bitcoin-dev mailing list
> bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev