Received: from sog-mx-3.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.193]
	helo=mx.sourceforge.net)
	by sfs-ml-1.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76)
	(envelope-from <etotheipi@gmail.com>) id 1WoMSe-0004FO-DF
	for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
	Sun, 25 May 2014 00:38:48 +0000
Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-3.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of gmail.com
	designates 209.85.216.179 as permitted sender)
	client-ip=209.85.216.179; envelope-from=etotheipi@gmail.com;
	helo=mail-qc0-f179.google.com; 
Received: from mail-qc0-f179.google.com ([209.85.216.179])
	by sog-mx-3.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128)
	(Exim 4.76) id 1WoMSd-0004Lo-Ik
	for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
	Sun, 25 May 2014 00:38:48 +0000
Received: by mail-qc0-f179.google.com with SMTP id r5so1837804qcx.38
	for <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>;
	Sat, 24 May 2014 17:38:42 -0700 (PDT)
X-Received: by 10.224.54.68 with SMTP id p4mr19494242qag.47.1400978322067;
	Sat, 24 May 2014 17:38:42 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [192.168.1.85] (c-76-111-96-126.hsd1.md.comcast.net.
	[76.111.96.126])
	by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id a42sm4986902qge.35.2014.05.24.17.38.41
	for <multiple recipients>
	(version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128);
	Sat, 24 May 2014 17:38:41 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <53813B91.2070309@gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 24 May 2014 20:38:41 -0400
From: Alan Reiner <etotheipi@gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64;
	rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.5.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Gregory Maxwell <gmaxwell@gmail.com>
References: <CAOXABZohe93SSRm1FN5ai2H97eBJV2j+LAjA-39YAaNmX=ep0Q@mail.gmail.com>	<CAAS2fgSJh83YEZjRfL81sKjC=nSKHtWT1qzS0evLJ9Gy6qdA1w@mail.gmail.com>	<CAOXABZoOnYSRf0Ktqxh8dx20Zi=E5gkp-8-C3-0ECudK=q05uA@mail.gmail.com>	<53813391.7040503@gmail.com>
	<CAAS2fgRSvbUdB80vQOvSBfCckzPASkw6wNzqZUk-h2pWiY8srg@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAAS2fgRSvbUdB80vQOvSBfCckzPASkw6wNzqZUk-h2pWiY8srg@mail.gmail.com>
X-Enigmail-Version: 1.6
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
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
	(etotheipi[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
X-Headers-End: 1WoMSd-0004Lo-Ik
Cc: Bitcoin Development <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>
Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] Cut-through propagation of blocks
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: Sun, 25 May 2014 00:38:48 -0000

On 05/24/2014 08:14 PM, Gregory Maxwell wrote:
> On Sat, May 24, 2014 at 5:04 PM, Alan Reiner <etotheipi@gmail.com> wrote:
>> I think the most important change is modifying the way Bitcoin Core
>> prioritizes blocks.  Right now it uses the first full block verified.
>> Instead, it should consider the first valid header received as highest
>> priority, but only mine on it once it has done full verification of the
> This directly opens an attack where as soon as you find a block you
> announce the header to the world and then you delay announcing the
> block content.  You can continue to mine on the block but no one else
> can (or alternatively they break their rule and risk extending an
> invalid block— bad news for SPV wallets)— then when you find a
> successor block or someone else finds a competing block you
> immediately announce the content.
>
> It basically means that you can always delay announcing a block and be
> sure that doing so doesn't deprive you of your winning position.
>
>

Would this not be solved by putting a expiration on application of this
logic?  For instance, if you haven't received the full new block within
5-10 seconds (perhaps adjusted based on local bandwidth), then the
header-received time is ignored.  Or is this too hacky?   I suppose this
is exactly what Ashley is trying to solve, she's just already made a few
more leaps forward in the design process than I have.  I'll stop
derailing it.