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
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
|
Return-Path: <adam@cypherspace.org>
Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org
[172.17.192.35])
by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5A05CBC6
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Wed, 7 Oct 2015 23:07:51 +0000 (UTC)
X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6
Received: from mout.perfora.net (mout.perfora.net [74.208.4.194])
by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 53ADD79
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Wed, 7 Oct 2015 23:07:50 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from mail-ig0-f181.google.com ([209.85.213.181]) by
mrelay.perfora.net (mreueus003) with ESMTPSA (Nemesis) id
0M5ehC-1aYW6P1PpY-00xZdS for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Thu, 08 Oct 2015 01:07:49 +0200
Received: by igbkq10 with SMTP id kq10so923413igb.0
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Wed, 07 Oct 2015 16:07:48 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.50.143.39 with SMTP id sb7mr224328igb.55.1444259268724; Wed,
07 Oct 2015 16:07:48 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.50.85.135 with HTTP; Wed, 7 Oct 2015 16:07:48 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Thu, 8 Oct 2015 01:07:48 +0200
Message-ID: <CALqxMTGs7ro5_TeHAQjB_s1qa+GjQcaLrA5QwODCQOOgDPVP6Q@mail.gmail.com>
From: Adam Back <adam@cypherspace.org>
To: "Jonathan Toomim (Toomim Bros)" <j@toom.im>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
X-Provags-ID: V03:K0:ha5obgi3OnKnUTXju8ONTT6jkIxi2b/jQVQdO0NI8LSGrsK7vG+
mBFUu+OKxkaKPvuXIyxSqhBtwD+DLFMkb6wPkRT17LL9VTCjGZtXh6579wAyLkGsld7tRrB
qnnXR2WWVtol+ft7k2pjFuyfuUTCKr7mkmhUtuzAJUTTw2zCevlhGiQ30CE2f7Y3B2sWYwY
u4QUl39etHKF4UxEHKg8w==
X-UI-Out-Filterresults: notjunk:1;V01:K0:PJa3JdJuLDE=:aX7Hief+3Gohx0LchMfH9P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X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE
autolearn=ham version=3.3.1
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on
smtp1.linux-foundation.org
Cc: "Jonathan Toomim \(Toomim Bros\) via bitcoin-dev"
<bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>, Anthony Towns <aj@erisian.com.au>
Subject: [bitcoin-dev] soft-fork security (Re: Let's deploy BIP65
CHECKLOCKTIMEVERIFY!)
X-BeenThere: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Bitcoin Development Discussion <bitcoin-dev.lists.linuxfoundation.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/options/bitcoin-dev>,
<mailto:bitcoin-dev-request@lists.linuxfoundation.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/>
List-Post: <mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
List-Help: <mailto:bitcoin-dev-request@lists.linuxfoundation.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev>,
<mailto:bitcoin-dev-request@lists.linuxfoundation.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 07 Oct 2015 23:07:51 -0000
On 7 October 2015 at 18:26, Jonathan Toomim (Toomim Bros) via
bitcoin-dev <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
> On Oct 7, 2015, at 9:02 AM, Eric Lombrozo <elombrozo@gmail.com> wrote:
> If you had a 99% hashpower supermajority on the new version, an attacker
> would still be able to perform this attack once per day.
[ie wait for a non-upgraded miner to win a block]
I dont think that is something strong and new to focus on or worry
about, because in Bitcoin's game theory there are lets say 3 types of
miners we're in aggregate trying to get security from:
a) honest (following protocol) bolstered by financial incentive to
remain honest of subsidy & fees
b) agnostic / lazy (just run software, upgrade when they lose money
and/or get shouted at)
c) dishonest
Bitcoin remains secure with various combinations of percentages. For
sure you wont have a good time if you assume < 1% are dishonest.
Therefore this attack can already happen, and in fact has. Users of
bitcoin must behave accordingly with confirmations.
Bitcoin direct is not super secure for unconfirmed (so-called
0-confirm) transactions, or even for 1-confirm transactions. See also
Finney attack.
That does not prevent people using unconfirmed transactions with risk
scoring, or in high trust settings, or high margin businesses selling
digital artefacts or physical with nominal incremental cost.
But it does mean that one has to keep that in mind. And it also
motivates lightning network or payment channels (lightning with one
intermediate node vs a network of nodes) - they can provide basically
instant 0-confirm securely, and that seems like the future.
In my opinion anyone relying on unconfirmed transactions needs to
monitor for problems, and have some plan B or workaround if the fraud
rates shoot up (if someone tries to attack it in an organised way),
and also a plan C mid-term plan to do something more robust. Some
people are less charitable and want to kill unconfirmed transactions
immediately. The message is the same ultimately.
Adam
|
