Return-Path: Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org [172.17.192.35]) by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D0EDE95E for ; Fri, 19 May 2017 07:16:21 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from mail-qt0-f181.google.com (mail-qt0-f181.google.com [209.85.216.181]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5C7ABF1 for ; Fri, 19 May 2017 07:16:21 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-qt0-f181.google.com with SMTP id v27so51906177qtg.2 for ; Fri, 19 May 2017 00:16:21 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:reply-to:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id :subject:to:cc; bh=7b/52CbDTQ+0UH8nqHy3AJruSPr4jaA8M13ujsrWlEk=; b=XmO9crBMtwO9cM+y0a6GpwGIyOdwNPweQKmVq0IkG3DlYd3lFiwvp+/bLgx8DcPP// mBSe3JeKJhy1WUgqoM8y0XQEdhctEEvDql02r6Xrdpy9N1q72Bqn0Bm51s6fcbZT/+hg AmmmjhZEUNVAcsIq8LbdBRK5YjigpmC0CwgbHGV1ZGnsUSFz/GtJeWH93Ler1v4KqiDG WMZ9epCBqm1fmf43GjrZ6jvisuocIe7mpKYZLdfOo+9ncf3sQgYXq7vlbfGxSw4GtHAe GvdN5uFyjxkicou4inBKF8nnLBqZqQtbITcrzI11xKFlftPHq94kE9pAhK80mD9cD7is WPQw== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:reply-to:in-reply-to:references :from:date:message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=7b/52CbDTQ+0UH8nqHy3AJruSPr4jaA8M13ujsrWlEk=; b=W7fH3+brrt2vbrSVGR62ixRJlboitL4exGsmn5bkZUqntvlvaHhVgxwhvwxa4izYQ4 ZXY0pYYjDpG5weJRVq+mGTp15H+cOZz9oEkt/I3H1CRsl+IGyaoFQ5WdsPumUUp1OsIS NNEDNTvUgbUmXYbqE/yguc7ZmEV3WqZEyKo2iUGWtHeGtXZl6hBr7FMDf9O/0oeoQzBq UphchT+z8NQzT7bc39x7zR9DiFt4y706IlpLRm68C6gbQkS8eNVepFi59jHBcGWPNq1d eShJRdmoGUl3s2KrIqR3Zfkuj+HE8H9+w9ArhABuMIPw+5sP4cSynX6HvPyUk78p2bC1 HlOw== X-Gm-Message-State: AODbwcB96fEWoJQPrMFLiDtt2KkpuOJwnF3kdrRm8S/liPkgUUwtV0gp fyafMcKb48nHeAMBEoViYNC2X5j3QDqD X-Received: by 10.237.36.151 with SMTP id t23mr7559454qtc.115.1495178180588; Fri, 19 May 2017 00:16:20 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.237.48.102 with HTTP; Fri, 19 May 2017 00:16:20 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.237.48.102 with HTTP; Fri, 19 May 2017 00:16:20 -0700 (PDT) Reply-To: erik@q32.com In-Reply-To: References: <4BA0FA5D-7B29-4A7F-BC5B-361ED00D5CB2@gmail.com> From: Erik Aronesty Date: Fri, 19 May 2017 03:16:20 -0400 Message-ID: To: Ryan Grant Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="001a113d7eb4547c82054fdb4c46" X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.2 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID, DKIM_VALID_AU, FREEMAIL_FROM, HTML_MESSAGE, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW, RCVD_IN_SORBS_SPAM 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: Fri, 19 May 2017 12:00:59 +0000 Cc: Bitcoin Protocol Discussion Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] =?utf-8?b?VHJlYXRpbmcg4oCYQVNJQ0JPT1NU4oCZIGFzIGEg?= =?utf-8?q?Security_Vulnerability?= X-BeenThere: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Bitcoin Protocol Discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 19 May 2017 07:16:21 -0000 --001a113d7eb4547c82054fdb4c46 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable ASIC boost is definitely a protocol vulnerability. It makes Bitcoin resistant to current and future modifications which are necessary to preserve decentralization. That alone should be enough to prioritize a swift preventative measure. On May 18, 2017 3:29 PM, "Ryan Grant via bitcoin-dev" < bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote: On Thu, May 18, 2017 at 9:44 AM, Cameron Garnham via bitcoin-dev wrote: > 3. We should assign a CVE to the vulnerability exploited by =E2=80=98ASICBOOST=E2=80=99. > > =E2=80=98ASICBOOST=E2=80=99 is an attack on this Bitcoin=E2=80=99s securi= ty assumptions and > should be considered an exploit of the Bitcoin Proof-of-Work > Function. On Thu, May 18, 2017 at 10:59 AM, Tier Nolan via bitcoin-dev wrote: > Arguably as long as the effort to find a block is proportional to the block > difficulty parameter, then it isn't an exploit. It is just an optimisation. One principled way to proceed would be to fault not the exploit, but the protocol design. Bits in the block header have been discovered which could be used for dual meanings, and at least one meaning does not preserve the incentive balances intended and assumed by others. This unexpectedly creates an incentive to block protocol improvements. The protocol must be repaired. In this view, which focuses on covert-ASICBOOST, how work is done is up to the implementation. But if the hashing work specified possibly could gain from blocking development work, then we have a vulnerability. I believe this is clear grounds for taking action without any delay. _______________________________________________ bitcoin-dev mailing list bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev --001a113d7eb4547c82054fdb4c46 Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
ASIC boost is definitely a protocol vulnerability. =C2=A0=

It makes Bitcoin resistant to= current and future modifications which are necessary to preserve decentral= ization.

That alone should be = enough to prioritize a swift preventative measure.

On May 18, 2017 3:29 PM,= "Ryan Grant via bitcoin-dev" <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wro= te:
On Thu, May 18, 2017 at 9:44 AM, Cameron Garnham via bitcoin-dev
<bitcoin-dev@li= sts.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
> 3.=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0We should assign a CVE to the vulnerability expl= oited by =E2=80=98ASICBOOST=E2=80=99.
>
> =E2=80=98ASICBOOST=E2=80=99 is an attack on this Bitcoin=E2=80=99s sec= urity assumptions and
> should be considered an exploit of the Bitcoin Proof-of-Work
> Function.

On Thu, May 18, 2017 at 10:59 AM, Tier Nol= an via bitcoin-dev
<bitcoin-dev@li= sts.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
> Arguably as long as the effort to find a block is proportional to the = block
> difficulty parameter, then it isn't an exploit.=C2=A0 It is just a= n optimisation.

One principled way to proceed would be to fault not the exploit, but<= br> the protocol design.

Bits in the block header have been discovered which could be used for
dual meanings, and at least one meaning does not preserve the
incentive balances intended and assumed by others.=C2=A0 This unexpectedly<= br> creates an incentive to block protocol improvements.=C2=A0 The protocol
must be repaired.

In this view, which focuses on covert-ASICBOOST, how work is done is
up to the implementation.=C2=A0 But if the hashing work specified possibly<= br> could gain from blocking development work, then we have a
vulnerability.

I believe this is clear grounds for taking action without any delay.
___________________________________________= ____
bitcoin-dev mailing list
bitcoin-dev@lists.= linuxfoundation.org
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org= /mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev

--001a113d7eb4547c82054fdb4c46--