Received: from sog-mx-3.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.193] helo=mx.sourceforge.net) by sfs-ml-4.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76) (envelope-from ) id 1SXuoz-00064K-VB for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Fri, 25 May 2012 13:44:49 +0000 Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-3.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of gmail.com designates 74.125.82.53 as permitted sender) client-ip=74.125.82.53; envelope-from=etotheipi@gmail.com; helo=mail-wg0-f53.google.com; Received: from mail-wg0-f53.google.com ([74.125.82.53]) by sog-mx-3.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128) (Exim 4.76) id 1SXuor-0003wx-08 for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Fri, 25 May 2012 13:44:49 +0000 Received: by wgbfm10 with SMTP id fm10so871239wgb.10 for ; Fri, 25 May 2012 06:44:34 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.180.91.196 with SMTP id cg4mr32438468wib.0.1337953474674; Fri, 25 May 2012 06:44:34 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.180.7.102 with HTTP; Fri, 25 May 2012 06:44:34 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.180.7.102 with HTTP; Fri, 25 May 2012 06:44:34 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: <201205250045.24540.luke@dashjr.org> <201205250057.39749.luke@dashjr.org> Date: Fri, 25 May 2012 09:44:34 -0400 Message-ID: From: Alan Reiner To: Christian Decker Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=f46d043bdf769581cc04c0dc9125 X-Spam-Score: -0.6 (/) 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 1.0 HTML_MESSAGE BODY: HTML included in message -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: 1SXuor-0003wx-08 Cc: bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] Punishing empty blocks? X-BeenThere: bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 25 May 2012 13:44:50 -0000 --f46d043bdf769581cc04c0dc9125 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 I like the concept except that it only works if every node connected to the miner enforces the rule (if it works). Once any one of the nodes forwards the block, other nodes see it coming from a node that can pass the challenge. I don't think any solution based on node queries will succeed, especially if it requires spontaneous super-majority-of-nodes acceptance. I think it's gotta be based on the block itself and each nodes' own info. If you could spontaneously get all miners to agree not to build off of anti-social blocks (however that is defined) , it would have a chance of making a difference, but individual miners would have an advantage building off the antisocial block because they only need to produce one to create the longest chain (and collect reward) while the miners following the rules need two blocks. --Sent from my overpriced smartphone On May 25, 2012 3:48 AM, "Christian Decker" wrote: > How about a simple proof of work test? This one though does not ask for > CPU work but asks the miner for a random old transaction. If the miner > really stores the entire blockchain he will not have any problem answering > to that getdata request, whereas a botnet would have to ask someone else > for it, which could be detected if the response time deviates too much from > what has been previously measured (compare it against getdata for the block > they advertise). It's not perfect but it allows an estimate of whether it > is a chainless miner. > > Regards, > Chris > -- > Christian Decker > > > > On Fri, May 25, 2012 at 3:17 AM, Jeff Garzik wrote: > >> On Thu, May 24, 2012 at 8:57 PM, Luke-Jr wrote: >> > Block times are not accurate enough for that. >> >> The times in your log are very accurate, assuming your system clock is >> remotely accurate. >> >> -- >> Jeff Garzik >> exMULTI, Inc. >> jgarzik@exmulti.com >> >> >> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ >> Live Security Virtual Conference >> Exclusive live event will cover all the ways today's security and >> threat landscape has changed and how IT managers can respond. Discussions >> will include endpoint security, mobile security and the latest in malware >> threats. http://www.accelacomm.com/jaw/sfrnl04242012/114/50122263/ >> _______________________________________________ >> Bitcoin-development mailing list >> Bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net >> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development >> > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > Live Security Virtual Conference > Exclusive live event will cover all the ways today's security and > threat landscape has changed and how IT managers can respond. Discussions > will include endpoint security, mobile security and the latest in malware > threats. http://www.accelacomm.com/jaw/sfrnl04242012/114/50122263/ > _______________________________________________ > Bitcoin-development mailing list > Bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development > > --f46d043bdf769581cc04c0dc9125 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

I like the concept except that it only works if every node connected to = the miner enforces the rule (if it works).=A0 Once any one of the nodes for= wards the block,=A0 other nodes see it coming from a node that can pass the= challenge.

I don't think any solution based on node queries will succeed,=A0 es= pecially if it requires spontaneous super-majority-of-nodes acceptance.=A0 = I think it's gotta be based on the block itself and each nodes' own= info.

If you could spontaneously get all miners to agree not to build off of a= nti-social blocks (however that is defined) ,=A0 it would have a chance of = making a difference,=A0 but individual miners would have an advantage build= ing off the antisocial block because they only need to produce one to creat= e the longest chain (and collect reward) while the miners following the rul= es need two blocks.

--Sent from my overpriced smartphone

On May 25, 2012 3:48 AM, "Christian Decker&= quot; <decker.christian@gm= ail.com> wrote:
How about a simple proof of work test? This one though does not ask for CPU= work but asks the miner for a random old transaction. If the miner really = stores the entire blockchain he will not have any problem answering to that= getdata request, whereas a botnet would have to ask someone else for it, w= hich could be detected if the response time deviates too much from what has= been previously measured (compare it against getdata for the block they ad= vertise). It's not perfect but it allows an estimate of whether it is a= chainless miner.

Regards,
Chris
--
Christian Decker


On Fri, May 25, 2012 at 3:17 AM, Jeff Ga= rzik <jgarzik@exmulti.com> wrote:
On Thu, May 24, 2012 at 8:57 PM, Luke-Jr <luke@dashjr.org> wrote:
> Block times are not accurate enough for that.

The times in your log are very accurate, assuming your system clock i= s
remotely accurate.

--
Jeff Garzik
exMULTI, Inc.
jgarzik@exmulti.co= m

-----------------------------------------------------------= -------------------
Live Security Virtual Conference
Exclusive live event will cover all the ways today's security and
threat landscape has changed and how IT managers can respond. Discussions will include endpoint security, mobile security and the latest in malware threats. http://www.accelacomm.com/jaw/sfrnl04242012/114/50122= 263/
_______________________________________________
Bitcoin-development mailing list
Bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-de= velopment


-----------------------------------------------------------------------= -------
Live Security Virtual Conference
Exclusive live event will cover all the ways today's security and
threat landscape has changed and how IT managers can respond. Discussions will include endpoint security, mobile security and the latest in malware threats. http://www.accelacomm.com/jaw/sfrnl04242012/114/50122= 263/
_______________________________________________
Bitcoin-development mailing list
Bitcoin-develo= pment@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-de= velopment

--f46d043bdf769581cc04c0dc9125--