summaryrefslogtreecommitdiff
path: root/53/0de5e2f6be208e5e17859d07a04b9da1b15cba
blob: 5045a6bb1796b0f6a2d9fb5c9f4d50b6c807d8c3 (plain)
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
Return-Path: <roberttaylorgen@gmail.com>
Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org
	[172.17.192.35])
	by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 585EAC7A
	for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
	Tue,  7 Nov 2017 03:56:02 +0000 (UTC)
X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6
Received: from mail-wr0-f170.google.com (mail-wr0-f170.google.com
	[209.85.128.170])
	by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id BED4D3DB
	for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
	Tue,  7 Nov 2017 03:56:01 +0000 (UTC)
Received: by mail-wr0-f170.google.com with SMTP id y9so10589435wrb.2
	for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
	Mon, 06 Nov 2017 19:56:01 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025;
	h=mime-version:from:date:message-id:subject:to;
	bh=it38HF5Z3qUWDuEMH+aJYk6rcV/vae2J4rQ2nYGjkDg=;
	b=QZBDA1Q2puoat6wOqDKa3o/rq6uMoi8q9LhimH8Z4A5w1Z/bb4MZgKSlzQH4EAUW9B
	FZo7X4SH8JIdiotvs9F2fOdK4/iueP+b0QkyLvHt5heq2WKuc3o1BChXAZb2wvojKXZH
	YX6M7s7AhZReIOPKQWeT0+Iz+aiqAxXZeKQa948+vT9pwAidnM2kLxASCoOJXvwBp6ZV
	GhcCxROZWUTsrg7gslkwPuq0g03yVZAr1uZ3s1syobOWp5/i/OfCPsxtJJgBy4PtBt9Q
	7GCPHl6aWORmZMRyiAXZxA/6BFfNYlkJwG3hq/8bD0LckYvuA8eVWiI0k3rtkGn+1UB0
	G0Ng==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
	d=1e100.net; s=20161025;
	h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:from:date:message-id:subject:to;
	bh=it38HF5Z3qUWDuEMH+aJYk6rcV/vae2J4rQ2nYGjkDg=;
	b=ikWzxo95bCKAI0565eGactLS1KUVzCN3JTwXABwqI/DdqeEZWoKeAq2VAIOsN371Om
	n0hNmkuM+ErYH9R13GUBWzmsU8aR4i3fl1GwM0JELR1TQCPB51Uj54VJ3KU9UCdJrKg2
	/G6ndhMuPmq8AHDTLb0rh/Ydv+xjjxSM8h12SNfl11nd7ha9f+IA+BEauZmhJcsoHW2o
	JpH3WqLmGpDXp3IDr3/3jg7zGTWX9M2NUOwwUCXeLPXuVHEnfNAYC43rPpak/2YM0R7U
	7Y7MMYmZMqfGwGqRMePatRgNenFUeTagROyDIc7roTog781p3J4vtYSafo5ZzsLlcZsV
	k6uA==
X-Gm-Message-State: AJaThX5W/JHM/4XvgJsumhGyDiryZfsVM5ju2IXmqU8Mmk/0j3MDx440
	M6X4UWMxaD644bdzJFoC2epXUWxBt9VklWo5tajikcjsMrM=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABhQp+TllEVzU/SIVRtOJSwuGF/NFfp5wnAX1QEetrfz6RxQ7wIExsEivRwSjQHqoy3vId0EzCL3JZukVDC2ZHybCOM=
X-Received: by 10.223.171.85 with SMTP id r21mr3627858wrc.182.1510026960241;
	Mon, 06 Nov 2017 19:56:00 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.28.149.139 with HTTP; Mon, 6 Nov 2017 19:55:59 -0800 (PST)
From: Robert Taylor <roberttaylorgen@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 7 Nov 2017 10:55:59 +0700
Message-ID: <CAArA6tURLo0yiM+js=KJEo8i1FTwOKV7V+qjC8yGd8q2PgvewQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="94eb2c1cb8f0910786055d5c8c12"
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.1 required=5.0 tests=DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID,
	DKIM_VALID_AU,FREEMAIL_FROM,HTML_MESSAGE,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE
	autolearn=disabled version=3.3.1
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on
	smtp1.linux-foundation.org
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Tue, 07 Nov 2017 04:32:24 +0000
Subject: [bitcoin-dev] Centralizing mining by force
X-BeenThere: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Bitcoin Protocol 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: Tue, 07 Nov 2017 03:56:02 -0000

--94eb2c1cb8f0910786055d5c8c12
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"

Forgive me if this has been asked elsewhere before, but I am trying to
understand a potential failure mode of Bitcoin mining.

A majority of miners can decide which valid blocks extend the chain. But
what would happen if a majority of miners, in the form of a cartel decided
to validly orphan any blocks made by miners outside of their group? For
example, they could soft fork a new rule where the block number is signed
by set of keys known only to the cartel, and that signature placed in the
coinbase. Miners outside of the cartel would not be able to extend the
chain.

It would be immediately obvious but still valid under the consensus rules.
What are the disincentives for such behavior and what countermeasures could
be done to stop it and ensure mining remained permissionless? I think this
is a valid concern because while it may not be feasible for one actor to
gain a majority of hash alone, it is certainly possible with collusion.

Robert

--94eb2c1cb8f0910786055d5c8c12
Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<div dir=3D"ltr">Forgive me if this has been asked elsewhere before, but I =
am trying to understand a potential failure mode of Bitcoin mining.<div><br=
>A majority of miners can decide which valid blocks extend the chain. But w=
hat would happen if a majority of miners, in the form of a cartel decided t=
o validly orphan any blocks made by miners outside of their group? For exam=
ple, they could soft fork a new rule where the block number is signed by se=
t of keys known only to the cartel, and that signature placed in the coinba=
se. Miners outside of the cartel would not be able to extend the chain.<br>=
<br>It would be immediately obvious but still valid under the consensus rul=
es. What are the disincentives for such behavior and what countermeasures c=
ould be done to stop it and ensure mining remained permissionless? I think =
this is a valid concern because while it may not be feasible for one actor =
to gain a majority of hash alone, it is certainly possible with collusion.<=
/div><div><br></div><div>Robert</div></div>

--94eb2c1cb8f0910786055d5c8c12--