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
|
Return-Path: <nbvfour@gmail.com>
Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org
[172.17.192.35])
by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6008DDDF
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Sun, 20 Dec 2015 03:47:13 +0000 (UTC)
X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6
Received: from mail-io0-f177.google.com (mail-io0-f177.google.com
[209.85.223.177])
by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D03B5EC
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Sun, 20 Dec 2015 03:47:12 +0000 (UTC)
Received: by mail-io0-f177.google.com with SMTP id q126so126251031iof.2
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Sat, 19 Dec 2015 19:47:12 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113;
h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject
:from:to:cc:content-type:content-transfer-encoding;
bh=yQRwaZcYILEM/6eR+c189DA0S/9KaZL9AOSCl704LW8=;
b=CjoqzCtlLB5gNdD46ukvVyzNUsBZqi3PNuY6cUxkkw1a6lrimm+4/rNgWqr7eQhwT3
2Pz8FK1WyLv9/dckshOCbG01UWNcA8QslBG8kaUSpHkaNhQbYy68vUj92V1QcFFsN6g/
ZdvhAbPhnqqfavUb4IqEIbxPv+FHF8w/ZkPQ/iczLI1OKGpBeVASKV0lLtWmaW2JrTs1
Hun2LhCSxKiOtOAQOfrPU5T1baNhrSPVX8b949rMvsk61U6HFDSgTYzpKQqrSWAMnInR
y9pXR3Ivl/zMojdKR9mP4IG2PwAdwtYhkc7urEbFVCkm7f1XA4EVB3ud5z+AzSH1nsHG
/OxA==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.107.40.76 with SMTP id o73mr8968114ioo.157.1450583232353;
Sat, 19 Dec 2015 19:47:12 -0800 (PST)
Sender: nbvfour@gmail.com
Received: by 10.36.20.142 with HTTP; Sat, 19 Dec 2015 19:47:12 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <219f125cee6ca68fd27016642e38fdf1@xbt.hk>
References: <20151219184240.GB12893@muck>
<CAAcC9yvh2ma2dFhNDEKs7vfXyQF9L+T0YtRvOsJ15AbfVti=cw@mail.gmail.com>
<219f125cee6ca68fd27016642e38fdf1@xbt.hk>
Date: Sat, 19 Dec 2015 19:47:12 -0800
X-Google-Sender-Auth: 163BHEeoPb5H4S9-VzbsCupRIYU
Message-ID: <CAAcC9ys_t7X0WpQ8W3577M8GLiA5sPV2F1BJ9qZbnMkE-1j3+Q@mail.gmail.com>
From: Chris Priest <cp368202@ohiou.edu>
To: jl2012 <jl2012@xbt.hk>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED,
DKIM_VALID, FREEMAIL_FROM, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW autolearn=ham version=3.3.1
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on
smtp1.linux-foundation.org
Cc: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] We need to fix the block withholding attack
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: Sun, 20 Dec 2015 03:47:13 -0000
On 12/19/15, jl2012 <jl2012@xbt.hk> wrote:
> Chris Priest via bitcoin-dev =E6=96=BC 2015-12-19 22:34 =E5=AF=AB=E5=88=
=B0:
>> Block witholding attacks are only possible if you have a majority of
>> hashpower. If you only have 20% hashpower, you can't do this attack.
>> Currently, this attack is only a theoretical attack, as the ones with
>> all the hashpower today are not engaging in this behavior. Even if
>> someone who had a lot of hashpower decided to pull off this attack,
>> they wouldn't be able to disrupt much. Once that time comes, then I
>> think this problem should be solved, until then it should be a low
>> priority. There are more important things to work on in the meantime.
>>
>
> This is not true. For a pool with 5% total hash rate, an attacker only
> needs 0.5% of hash rate to sabotage 10% of their income. It's already
> enough to kill the pool
>
>
This begs the question: If this is such a devastating attack, then why
hasn't this attack brought down every pool in existence? As far as I'm
aware, there are many pools in operation despite this possibility.
|
