Received: from sog-mx-2.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.192]
	helo=mx.sourceforge.net)
	by sfs-ml-2.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76)
	(envelope-from <mark@monetize.io>) id 1Wxj7L-0000h7-FT
	for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
	Thu, 19 Jun 2014 20:39:31 +0000
Received: from mail-pb0-f48.google.com ([209.85.160.48])
	by sog-mx-2.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128)
	(Exim 4.76) id 1Wxj7J-0000so-Eg
	for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
	Thu, 19 Jun 2014 20:39:31 +0000
Received: by mail-pb0-f48.google.com with SMTP id rq2so2290064pbb.21
	for <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>;
	Thu, 19 Jun 2014 13:39:23 -0700 (PDT)
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
	d=1e100.net; s=20130820;
	h=x-gm-message-state:message-id:date:from:organization:user-agent
	:mime-version:to:cc:subject:references:in-reply-to:content-type
	:content-transfer-encoding;
	bh=cg+Q11S4AhEv43hE7O6UQLUjGAcOWYsApweq9qBq7GA=;
	b=ccYjBXlQzLQIIGzaL3JDJT2lJvlt62qNXBUAfFhcdTb3P++WH1HkTr7GApScdwgA1T
	U4Qk9Lgkh9LZNxW8nJdrrrbIe0v6Dzp9QN9eNqjwG3gssV2pz+bxKoyHKR81CH2dnU2d
	D5x6VAIiJgVuNZlnIEOrMnUKTzCnpBr8JPonte+kVzNBP+QNz38DYy4CCang0UP/nE/m
	P4tP3zD0eeH4JWxddBc4klvMtbogdJW1PjdZDMIdO4/3gThIW/5mtSs9yJw5ZN+lPhzh
	NLrd1MZFi1KIFfDiZ/vl3lDWxGiN291tJHPn3YAgIVGUOV9mOfgcnp+YkRe06c8spknQ
	oLaA==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQkSC6NVXNCLso0+0lNNV2Aluaq/4bTGu5+Aq2V30puuCehKY5yHE8lnl6/wSlpCfoheGzFo
X-Received: by 10.68.229.36 with SMTP id sn4mr8450786pbc.51.1403210363345;
	Thu, 19 Jun 2014 13:39:23 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [192.168.127.236] (50-0-36-179.dsl.dynamic.sonic.net.
	[50.0.36.179]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id
	vy5sm31870588pac.13.2014.06.19.13.39.16 for <multiple recipients>
	(version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128);
	Thu, 19 Jun 2014 13:39:22 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <53A34A71.2090106@monetize.io>
Date: Thu, 19 Jun 2014 13:39:13 -0700
From: Mark Friedenbach <mark@monetize.io>
Organization: Monetize.io Inc.
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64;
	rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.5.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: slush <slush@centrum.cz>, Mike Hearn <mike@plan99.net>
References: <53A316BE.5040508@certimix.com> <53A31B3E.7020906@monetize.io>
	<CANEZrP2Lq-28NuvOJR_rS3N2TZsy13xrKubcfPBrMbP7WArcKw@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAJna-HgNnwARH2AN_LJ1LFkrWL5n4X4Lo-koW0WdOWw1RUiGJA@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAJna-HgNnwARH2AN_LJ1LFkrWL5n4X4Lo-koW0WdOWw1RUiGJA@mail.gmail.com>
X-Enigmail-Version: 1.6
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Spam-Report: Spam Filtering performed by mx.sourceforge.net.
	See http://spamassassin.org/tag/ for more details.
X-Headers-End: 1Wxj7J-0000so-Eg
Cc: Bitcoin Dev <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>
Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] BlockPow: A Practical Proposal to prevent
 mining pools AND reduce payoff variance:
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: Thu, 19 Jun 2014 20:39:31 -0000

Do you need to do full validation? There's an economic cost to mining
invalid blocks, and even if that were acceptable there's really no
reason to perform such an attack. The result would be similar to a block
withholding attack, but unlike block withholding it would be trivially
detectable if/when full validation was performed.

To protect yourself and to detect incorrect mining software you could
stochastically validate a randomly selected sample of shares, as your
hardware requirements allow.

On 06/19/2014 01:26 PM, slush wrote:
> With GBT, simply hashing the block header is not enough, because pool
> cannot rely on anything provided by the client. Its not only about
> things like withdrawal attacks, but more about hidden bugs in various
> miners. It is extremely hard to do full validation for *every* of
> submitted shares.