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
|
Return-Path: <tomh@thinlink.com>
Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org
[172.17.192.35])
by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6CD34481
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Sun, 26 Mar 2017 21:42:50 +0000 (UTC)
X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6
Received: from mail-yw0-f170.google.com (mail-yw0-f170.google.com
[209.85.161.170])
by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id EA0B72A6
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Sun, 26 Mar 2017 21:42:49 +0000 (UTC)
Received: by mail-yw0-f170.google.com with SMTP id d191so20119921ywe.2
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Sun, 26 Mar 2017 14:42:49 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
d=thinlink-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623;
h=subject:to:references:from:message-id:date:user-agent:mime-version
:in-reply-to; bh=gmc6OxV/EflPHCxxtnj5pDWQ0fxGZkeERI4BQOq89To=;
b=g48nbZwM/d4tLH4No8aZ8AHWZDXzFl/SzxeoJp2EofEGb4Nj30mtqTUL2d02tFud63
SlwB2thEc9bBomOIX8VecG+Bth7fntB5BmU+JBfVV/LKaOey9T7G+ZN1QTXMu95gVeZP
AJv80Wnrkl7uJ/jSNuXLWf9HfeDqAAVxeL8s69KKRHRI0TCDAxRcpK9rx7VTD4FKROHb
2w+EgBRY/Sld4ZpV88rCXXtirPxM8YLfwMkqMHCwBhcxYQpA9/GOuVHyWrWxNJq/Wtse
EUZtiYcTPzbEKcHUZoRmsCupmbv+bCK7aSmhhiMLE5yP2WGXza0AfMwLyCXT0s3CgO9k
A8FA==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
d=1e100.net; s=20161025;
h=x-gm-message-state:subject:to:references:from:message-id:date
:user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to;
bh=gmc6OxV/EflPHCxxtnj5pDWQ0fxGZkeERI4BQOq89To=;
b=qKBpTazpPzHcTz4laoe7iC/ag+xxTbgma8L2RLs/s5K7rI6QWmT1ZoOjQpInAZ8RdU
OAEK+H6aPMbGsSCoxIgT4B03/dhRymGi1Vx1r+uWUlj8d+9uEj19KLnX3+qobnqTZG5K
n/YsPSOK/hjZ9gxrfOgLARPwEGCI70PCqhTB/v0zGbHV91y3AeCKvQ5u6cQY5WU3BZkS
GXML1L+ZtarTsYIoIshz2PSdsvexL1SKvtxP1w7EguS3aKp9IxqSptORHzGjKxJal5v5
qadVM+n3EtuMv+GaBVk7g7IODPKah4vAljs2uEbHUDQjGfYjbZX2TvuWpMGrXbVQXiZ+
uD1Q==
X-Gm-Message-State: AFeK/H3RC1vPJcuUj6jAUrcCI1oNY+yt3GPfttCHrbIE0hujwepWejWeJO+uRcL/8cJzORj0
X-Received: by 10.129.155.210 with SMTP id s201mr14606388ywg.321.1490564568755;
Sun, 26 Mar 2017 14:42:48 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [192.168.1.89] (99-8-65-117.lightspeed.davlca.sbcglobal.net.
[99.8.65.117]) by smtp.googlemail.com with ESMTPSA id
p1sm3574986ywh.77.2017.03.26.14.42.47
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
(version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128);
Sun, 26 Mar 2017 14:42:47 -0700 (PDT)
To: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
References: <5b9ba6c4-6d8f-9c0b-2420-2be6c30f87b5@cannon-ciota.info>
<35ba77db-f95a-4517-c960-8ad42a633ba0@gmail.com>
<f4849cef-3c40-31a4-e323-6a731bb52bc2@cannon-ciota.info>
<9C2A6867-470D-4336-8439-17F4E0CA4B17@gmx.com>
<CAPWm=eV2aLJKMM_5T-jaXCm1umRFxy+vfirBqCGAvUKHtOphQg@mail.gmail.com>
<9EB5050D-E54E-4E8B-84C6-95CC1FAC4081@gmx.com>
<CABaSBayb-FAt0XOX9u+T3-Z2gJQAV-Y7xZS_k6YG74VhPqejQA@mail.gmail.com>
From: Tom Harding <tomh@thinlink.com>
Message-ID: <f10ed0f1-73ee-a6fb-dddf-7a9234fe5c5b@thinlink.com>
Date: Sun, 26 Mar 2017 14:42:51 -0700
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.3; WOW64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101
Thunderbird/45.8.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CABaSBayb-FAt0XOX9u+T3-Z2gJQAV-Y7xZS_k6YG74VhPqejQA@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
boundary="------------5BF56F33F4CF6D1E14E7267E"
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED,
DKIM_VALID, HTML_MESSAGE, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE autolearn=ham version=3.3.1
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on
smtp1.linux-foundation.org
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Sun, 26 Mar 2017 21:49:48 +0000
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Defending against empty or near empty blocks from
malicious miner takeover?
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: Sun, 26 Mar 2017 21:42:50 -0000
This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
--------------5BF56F33F4CF6D1E14E7267E
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
On 3/26/2017 1:22 PM, Bryan Bishop via bitcoin-dev wrote:
> On Sun, Mar 26, 2017 at 2:05 PM, Peter R via bitcoin-dev
> <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
> <mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>> wrote:
>
> With a tightening of the rule set, a hash power minority that has
> not upgraded will not produce a minority branch; instead they will
> simply have any invalid blocks they produce orphaned, serving as a
> wake-up call to upgrade.
>
>
> False. With bip9-based soft-fork-based activation of segwit, miner
> blocks will not be orphaned unless they are intentionally
> segwit-invalid (which they currently are not). If you have told miners
> otherwise, let me know.
>
A reasonable miner automatically checks every transaction seen, to see
if it might be valid with his own outputs substituted.
--------------5BF56F33F4CF6D1E14E7267E
Content-Type: text/html; charset=windows-1252
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=windows-1252"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
On 3/26/2017 1:22 PM, Bryan Bishop via bitcoin-dev wrote:<br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:CABaSBayb-FAt0XOX9u+T3-Z2gJQAV-Y7xZS_k6YG74VhPqejQA@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">
<div dir="ltr">
<div class="gmail_extra">
<div class="gmail_quote">On Sun, Mar 26, 2017 at 2:05 PM,
Peter R via bitcoin-dev <span dir="ltr"><<a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org"
target="_blank">bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org</a>></span>
wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0
.8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div style="word-wrap:break-word">
<div>
<div>
<div>With a tightening of the rule set, a hash power
minority that has not upgraded will not produce a
minority branch; instead they will simply have any
invalid blocks they produce orphaned, serving as a
wake-up call to upgrade.</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>False. With bip9-based soft-fork-based activation of
segwit, miner blocks will not be orphaned unless they are
intentionally segwit-invalid (which they currently are
not). If you have told miners otherwise, let me know.</div>
</div>
<br>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
A reasonable miner automatically checks every transaction seen, to
see if it might be valid with his own outputs substituted.<br>
<br>
</body>
</html>
--------------5BF56F33F4CF6D1E14E7267E--
|
