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
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
|
Return-Path: <pete@petertodd.org>
Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org
[172.17.192.35])
by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A8E271180
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Mon, 28 Dec 2015 19:12:37 +0000 (UTC)
X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6
Received: from outmail148095.authsmtp.com (outmail148095.authsmtp.com
[62.13.148.95])
by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 96C8914D
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Mon, 28 Dec 2015 19:12:36 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from mail-c247.authsmtp.com (mail-c247.authsmtp.com [62.13.128.247])
by punt23.authsmtp.com (8.14.2/8.14.2/) with ESMTP id tBSJCZKk087538;
Mon, 28 Dec 2015 19:12:35 GMT
Received: from muck (S0106e091f5827ad2.ok.shawcable.net [24.71.232.17])
(authenticated bits=128)
by mail.authsmtp.com (8.14.2/8.14.2/) with ESMTP id tBSJCSIk053435
(version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO);
Mon, 28 Dec 2015 19:12:31 GMT
Date: Mon, 28 Dec 2015 11:12:28 -0800
From: Peter Todd <pete@petertodd.org>
To: Multipool Admin <admin@multipool.us>
Message-ID: <20151228191228.GC12298@muck>
References: <20151219184240.GB12893@muck>
<CAAcC9yvh2ma2dFhNDEKs7vfXyQF9L+T0YtRvOsJ15AbfVti=cw@mail.gmail.com>
<4882BD35-D890-4860-9222-5C23AEB6AE89@mattcorallo.com>
<CAAcC9yspsPs3gbumS4rTOg-P-=V=tycn2Z1nVPGGHwJ-nP+PBg@mail.gmail.com>
<20151220044450.GA23942@muck>
<CAP3QyGJD3SaM6Bvvw66jAvVFkQhrfJfRQTxbbe8a=O1zK_P6tw@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha256;
protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="hHWLQfXTYDoKhP50"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <CAP3QyGJD3SaM6Bvvw66jAvVFkQhrfJfRQTxbbe8a=O1zK_P6tw@mail.gmail.com>
X-Server-Quench: f2285c3b-ad96-11e5-bcde-0015176ca198
X-AuthReport-Spam: If SPAM / abuse - report it at:
http://www.authsmtp.com/abuse
X-AuthRoute: OCd2Yg0TA1ZNQRgX IjsJECJaVQIpKltL GxAVKBZePFsRUQkR
aQdMdAoUHFAXAgsB AmMbWl1eUV97WmE7 aQ5PagRDYElMQQRt
T01BRU1TWkEaYmZy ZWdFUhxxcwZDNn9z Zk5hECZZXkx/JkUv
Xx8AHGsbZGY1bX1N AxQNagNUcQZLeRkW O1F2XD1vNG8XDSg5
AwQ0PjZ0MThBHWxq T0kLIF8eCVoMVjA9 V1geHThnF0kCTCZ7
MB06Kl4bGEoQNEp6 OEc9UFkbWwA8
X-Authentic-SMTP: 61633532353630.1038:706
X-AuthFastPath: 0 (Was 255)
X-AuthSMTP-Origin: 24.71.232.17/587
X-AuthVirus-Status: No virus detected - but ensure you scan with your own
anti-virus system.
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW
autolearn=ham version=3.3.1
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on
smtp1.linux-foundation.org
Cc: Bitcoin Dev <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] We need to fix the block withholding attack
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: Mon, 28 Dec 2015 19:12:37 -0000
--hHWLQfXTYDoKhP50
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
On Sat, Dec 26, 2015 at 12:12:13AM -0800, Multipool Admin wrote:
> Any attempt to 'fix' this problem, would most likely require changes to a=
ll
> mining software, why not just make mining more decentralized in general?
>=20
> For example, allow anyone to submit proofs of work to Bitcoind that are
> some fraction of the network difficulty and receive payment for them if
> they're valid. This would also encourage the proliferation of full nodes
> since anyone could solo mine again. Then, the next coinbase transaction
> could be split among, say, the top 100 proofs of work.
That's certainly be a good place to be, but the design of Bitcoin
currently makes achieving that goal fundementally difficult.=20
> Eligius already does their miner payouts like this.
>=20
> If you want to fix an issue with mining, fix the selfish mining issue fir=
st
> as it's a much larger and more dangerous potential issue.
Do you specifically mean selfish mining as defined in Emin G=FCn
Sirer/Ittay Eyal's paper? Keep in mind that attack is only a significant
issue in a scenario - one malicious miner with >30% hashing power -
where you're already very close to the margins anyway; the difference
between a 50% attack threshold and a 30% attack threshold isn't very
significant.
Far more concerning is network propagation effects between large and
small miners. For that class of issues, if you are in an environemnt
where selfish mining is possible - a fairly flat, easily DoS/sybil
attacked network topology - the profitability difference between small
and large miners even *without* attacks going on is a hugely worrying
problem. OTOH, if you're blocksize is small enough that propagation time
is negligable to profitability, then selfish mining attacks with <30%
hashing power aren't much of a concern - they'll be naturally defeated
by anti-DoS/anti-sybil measures.
> I don't believe it was ever clearly established whether Eligius suffered a
> block withholding attack or was just the victim of a miner with (what was,
> at the time) a large amount of faulty hardware, however, from the
> Bitcointalk threads at the time I believe it was assumed to be the latter.
I think the latter was assumed as well, although ruling out of the
former is impossible.
Note though that Eligius is *not* the only pool to have had problems
with block withholding, though AFAIK Eligius is the only one who has
gone on record so far. (as I said in my original post, I'm relaying
information given to me under condition of confidentiality)
--=20
'peter'[:-1]@petertodd.org
000000000000000004a36565fb282c4bd06dda61329fda2465b0bfeaf7241dab
--hHWLQfXTYDoKhP50
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc"
Content-Description: Digital signature
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----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==
=hS3a
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--hHWLQfXTYDoKhP50--
|
