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
|
Received: from sog-mx-4.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.194]
helo=mx.sourceforge.net)
by sfs-ml-2.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76)
(envelope-from <pieter.wuille@gmail.com>) id 1VdLEn-0001HG-On
for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Mon, 04 Nov 2013 14:34:41 +0000
Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-4.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of gmail.com
designates 209.85.223.169 as permitted sender)
client-ip=209.85.223.169; envelope-from=pieter.wuille@gmail.com;
helo=mail-ie0-f169.google.com;
Received: from mail-ie0-f169.google.com ([209.85.223.169])
by sog-mx-4.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128)
(Exim 4.76) id 1VdLEn-0003uB-2C
for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Mon, 04 Nov 2013 14:34:41 +0000
Received: by mail-ie0-f169.google.com with SMTP id ar20so12735651iec.28
for <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>;
Mon, 04 Nov 2013 06:34:35 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.50.129.39 with SMTP id nt7mr11944012igb.13.1383575675761;
Mon, 04 Nov 2013 06:34:35 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.50.141.136 with HTTP; Mon, 4 Nov 2013 06:34:35 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <20131104142621.GA2190@petertodd.org>
References: <CANEZrP3iYBdg3p7Ru4O-UENY_yyQDA8=9PGn=KDKGGTrZ-xkRw@mail.gmail.com>
<20131104142621.GA2190@petertodd.org>
Date: Mon, 4 Nov 2013 15:34:35 +0100
Message-ID: <CAPg+sBiOP_cgDXb5vkM-BYEd_Sf7DKeWrwf-67p4dx_a3n8r0g@mail.gmail.com>
From: Pieter Wuille <pieter.wuille@gmail.com>
To: Peter Todd <pete@petertodd.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
X-Spam-Score: -1.6 (-)
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 FREEMAIL_FROM Sender email is commonly abused enduser mail provider
(pieter.wuille[at]gmail.com)
-0.0 SPF_PASS SPF: sender matches SPF record
-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
0.0 URIBL_BLOCKED ADMINISTRATOR NOTICE: The query to URIBL was blocked.
See
http://wiki.apache.org/spamassassin/DnsBlocklists#dnsbl-block
for more information. [URIs: petertodd.org]
X-Headers-End: 1VdLEn-0003uB-2C
Cc: Ittay Eyal <ittay.eyal@cornell.edu>,
Bitcoin Dev <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>
Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] Auto-generated miner backbone
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: Mon, 04 Nov 2013 14:34:41 -0000
On Mon, Nov 4, 2013 at 3:26 PM, Peter Todd <pete@petertodd.org> wrote:
> The correct, and rational, approach for a miner is to always mine to
> extend the block that the majority of hashing power is trying to extend.
> The current relay rules don't give you that information at all, but they
> can if we do two things:
>
> 1) Relay all blocks that meet the PoW target. (as suggested in the
> paper)
>
> 2) Relay block headers that nearly meet the PoW target.
>
> Mining strategy is now to mine to extend the first block you see, on the
> assumption that the earlier one probably propagated to a large portion
> of the total hashing power. But as you receive "near-blocks" that are
> under the PoW target, use them to estimate the hashing power on each
> fork, and if it looks like you are not on the majority side, switch.
Doesn't that mean that by selective blocking these near-PoW headers,
you can bias peers into preferring to mine on those with near-PoW
headers, turning the attack around? Of course, because of their size,
headers are likely much harder to slow down (in propagation speed)
than full blocks...
--
Pieter
|
