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
|
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 <stephencalebmorse@gmail.com>) id 1YtTtJ-0000Fe-1D
for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Sat, 16 May 2015 04:40:01 +0000
Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-3.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of gmail.com
designates 209.85.192.50 as permitted sender)
client-ip=209.85.192.50;
envelope-from=stephencalebmorse@gmail.com;
helo=mail-qg0-f50.google.com;
Received: from mail-qg0-f50.google.com ([209.85.192.50])
by sog-mx-3.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128)
(Exim 4.76) id 1YtTtI-0007Af-9z
for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Sat, 16 May 2015 04:40:01 +0000
Received: by qgfh8 with SMTP id h8so10504179qgf.3
for <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>;
Fri, 15 May 2015 21:39:54 -0700 (PDT)
X-Received: by 10.140.28.102 with SMTP id 93mr16578785qgy.78.1431751194885;
Fri, 15 May 2015 21:39:54 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [192.168.0.4] (cpe-108-176-225-232.maine.res.rr.com.
[108.176.225.232])
by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id k19sm2499976qgd.3.2015.05.15.21.39.54
(version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128);
Fri, 15 May 2015 21:39:54 -0700 (PDT)
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset=us-ascii
Mime-Version: 1.0 (1.0)
From: Stephen <stephencalebmorse@gmail.com>
X-Mailer: iPhone Mail (12F70)
In-Reply-To: <20150509030833.GA28871@savin.petertodd.org>
Date: Sat, 16 May 2015 00:39:53 -0400
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <9BBD3F51-2FE0-4861-B045-6ACFC48AA21D@gmail.com>
References: <554BE0E1.5030001@bluematt.me>
<CANEZrP3uKLvzKi-wXBJWL=pwqB+eAe3FbPjyESD52y5TGkg+Rg@mail.gmail.com>
<20150508163701.GA27417@savin.petertodd.org>
<CAE-z3OV8zyUyYiGNRZZbTkUZz70KK7P-ENyhsKe+yhZmNnqRuQ@mail.gmail.com>
<20150509030833.GA28871@savin.petertodd.org>
To: Peter Todd <pete@petertodd.org>
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
(stephencalebmorse[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
0.0 AWL AWL: Adjusted score from AWL reputation of From: address
X-Headers-End: 1YtTtI-0007Af-9z
Cc: Bitcoin Dev <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>
Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] Block Size Increase Requirements
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: Sat, 16 May 2015 04:40:01 -0000
Comments in line:
> On May 8, 2015, at 11:08 PM, Peter Todd <pete@petertodd.org> wrote:
>=20
> Makes it trivial to find miners and DoS attack them - a huge risk to the
> network as a whole, as well as the miners.
>=20
> Right now pools already get DoSed all the time through their work
> submission systems; getting DoS attacked via their nodes as well would
> be a disaster.
It seems that using a -miner flag to follow rules about smaller blocks would=
only reveal miner nodes if one sent the node a solved block that that was v=
alid in every way except the block size. While not impossible, I wouldn't ca=
ll this trivial, as it still requires wasting an entire block's worth of ene=
rgy.=20
>> When in "miner mode", the client would reject 4MB blocks and wouldn't bui=
ld
>> on them. The reference client might even track the miner and the non-min=
er
>> chain tip.
>>=20
>> Miners would refuse to build on 5MB blocks, but merchants and general use=
rs
>> would accept them.
>=20
> That'd be an excellent way to double-spend merchants, significantly
> increasing the chance that the double-spend would succeed as you only
> have to get sufficient hashing power to get the lucky blocks; you don't
> need enough hashing power to *also* ensure those blocks don't become the
> longest chain, removing the need to sybil attack your target.
>=20
I think this could be mitigated by counting confirmations differently. We sh=
ould think of confirmations as only coming from blocks following the miners'=
more strict rule set. So if a merchant were to see payment for the first ti=
me in a block that met their own size restrictions but not the miners', then=
they would simply count it as unconfirmed.=20
If they get deep enough in the chain, though, the client should probably cou=
nt them as being confirmed anyway, even if they don't meet the client nodes'=
expectation of the miners' block size limit. This happening probably just m=
eans that the client has not updated their software (or -minermaxblocksize c=
onfiguration, depending on how it is implemented) in a long time.=20
I actually like Tier's suggestion quite a bit. I think we could have the def=
ault client limit set to some higher number, and have miners agree out of ba=
nd on the latest block size limit. Or maybe even build in a way to vote into=
the blockchain.=20
Best,=20
Stephen=
|
