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
|
Received: from sog-mx-2.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.192]
helo=mx.sourceforge.net)
by sfs-ml-1.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76)
(envelope-from <robert@mckay.com>) id 1UO4Z1-0000En-Sd
for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Fri, 05 Apr 2013 11:12:13 +0000
Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-2.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of mckay.com
designates 37.1.88.131 as permitted sender)
client-ip=37.1.88.131; envelope-from=robert@mckay.com;
helo=mail.mckay.com;
Received: from mail.mckay.com ([37.1.88.131])
by sog-mx-2.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256)
(Exim 4.76) id 1UO4Z0-0001LK-6a
for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Fri, 05 Apr 2013 11:12:11 +0000
Received: from www-data by mail.mckay.com with local (Exim 4.76)
(envelope-from <robert@mckay.com>)
id 1UO4De-0003Q7-Vw; Fri, 05 Apr 2013 11:50:07 +0100
To: Mike Hearn <mike@plan99.net>
X-PHP-Originating-Script: 0:func.inc
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset=UTF-8;
format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Date: Fri, 05 Apr 2013 11:50:06 +0100
From: Robert McKay <robert@mckay.com>
In-Reply-To: <CANEZrP3S7b+uh2LW4vH=53opopLJRmmJ-_Uad6yEQxZ3kHW47A@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAKaEYhLqnzrhdJNTSBccDA68Mb-hUnaZaCa9Gn43FuVpa410sg@mail.gmail.com>
<CANEZrP3S7b+uh2LW4vH=53opopLJRmmJ-_Uad6yEQxZ3kHW47A@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <bd376018d72b65a64a5124ebc2770d1a@webmail.mckay.com>
X-Sender: robert@mckay.com
User-Agent: Roundcube Webmail/0.5.3
X-Spam-Score: -4.0 (----)
X-Spam-Report: Spam Filtering performed by mx.sourceforge.net.
See http://spamassassin.org/tag/ for more details.
-1.5 SPF_CHECK_PASS SPF reports sender host as permitted sender for
sender-domain
-0.0 SPF_PASS SPF: sender matches SPF record
-2.4 RP_MATCHES_RCVD Envelope sender domain matches handover relay
domain
-0.1 DKIM_VALID_AU Message has a valid DKIM or DK signature from
author's domain
0.1 DKIM_SIGNED Message has a DKIM or DK signature,
not necessarily valid
-0.1 DKIM_VALID Message has at least one valid DKIM or DK signature
X-Headers-End: 1UO4Z0-0001LK-6a
Cc: Bitcoin Dev <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>
Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] A mining pool at 46%
X-BeenThere: bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: <bitcoin-development.lists.sourceforge.net>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development>,
<mailto:bitcoin-development-request@lists.sourceforge.net?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://sourceforge.net/mailarchive/forum.php?forum_name=bitcoin-development>
List-Post: <mailto:bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>
List-Help: <mailto:bitcoin-development-request@lists.sourceforge.net?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development>,
<mailto:bitcoin-development-request@lists.sourceforge.net?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 05 Apr 2013 11:12:13 -0000
On Fri, 5 Apr 2013 11:48:51 +0200, Mike Hearn wrote:
> However, youre somewhat right in the sense that its a self-defeating
> attack. If the pool owner went bad, he could pull it off once, but
> the
> act of doing so would leave a permanent record and many of the people
> mining on his pool would leave. As he doesnt own the actual mining
> hardware, he then wouldnt be able to do it again.
Unless all the miners are monitoring the work they do for their pools
and the actual miners that found the blocks noticed (unlikely) - the
only way anyone knows which pool did anything is the source IP that
first disseminates the new block. Also since it's unlikely that both of
the doublespend blocks would be found by the same end miner, neither of
them would know that the pool operator was responsible even if they were
monitoring their work.
There's nothing stopping the pool owner from channeling the doublespend
blocks through some other previously unknown IP, so I don't think they
would suffer any reputational damage from doing this repeatidly.
Robert
|
