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
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
|
Received: from sog-mx-3.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.193]
helo=mx.sourceforge.net)
by sfs-ml-3.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76)
(envelope-from <christophe.biocca@gmail.com>) id 1WwuFo-0005RM-3X
for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Tue, 17 Jun 2014 14:20:52 +0000
Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-3.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of gmail.com
designates 209.85.223.175 as permitted sender)
client-ip=209.85.223.175;
envelope-from=christophe.biocca@gmail.com;
helo=mail-ie0-f175.google.com;
Received: from mail-ie0-f175.google.com ([209.85.223.175])
by sog-mx-3.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128)
(Exim 4.76) id 1WwuFk-0007L2-Kr
for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Tue, 17 Jun 2014 14:20:52 +0000
Received: by mail-ie0-f175.google.com with SMTP id tp5so6183150ieb.6
for <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>;
Tue, 17 Jun 2014 07:20:42 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.50.98.100 with SMTP id eh4mr33953713igb.9.1403014842757;
Tue, 17 Jun 2014 07:20:42 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.64.102.136 with HTTP; Tue, 17 Jun 2014 07:20:42 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <CA+8=xuKmE2rgNK+Q4g+Gqvy3QuYAXzVRYtWKC2VttuB_LJmyMA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CA+8=xuKmE2rgNK+Q4g+Gqvy3QuYAXzVRYtWKC2VttuB_LJmyMA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 17 Jun 2014 10:20:42 -0400
Message-ID: <CANOOu=9W42upZGtXWvRwyJH0tO766VT37jAR23V_rCZ9+qxTTw@mail.gmail.com>
From: Christophe Biocca <christophe.biocca@gmail.com>
To: =?UTF-8?B?UmHDumwgTWFydMOtbmV6?= <rme@i-rme.es>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
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
(christophe.biocca[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
X-Headers-End: 1WwuFk-0007L2-Kr
Cc: Bitcoin Dev <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>
Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] Proposals for improving Bitcoin mining
decentralization
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: Tue, 17 Jun 2014 14:20:52 -0000
https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Getblocktemplate is supposed to solve most
of the pooling-centralization problems. Unfortunately, it is opt-in,
and GHash.io doesn't support it.
Also most miners don't care and don't do the work to set it up. To do
transaction inclusion themselves, they'd need to run a full node,
which is a bit more work and resources than just pointing hashpower at
a stratum server.
If you figure out a way to make GBT widely used (>50% hashpower), kudos to =
you.
On Tue, Jun 17, 2014 at 4:57 AM, Ra=C3=BAl Mart=C3=ADnez <rme@i-rme.es> wro=
te:
> First of all I apologice due to the possible mistakes in my writing below=
, I
> am not a Bitcoin developer but I have some knowledge about it.
>
> ----
>
> We all know the recent news, Ghash pool controlling 51% of the hashrate.
> While some consider it a threat others think that is not harmful.
>
> The thing is that we have to do something to stop this from happening aga=
in.
>
> My proposal is to start thinking about miners that join a pool like
> independent miners and not slave miners, this includes creating a new min=
ing
> protocol that does not rely on the pool sending the list of transactions =
to
> include in a block. Each individual miner has to collect transactions by =
his
> own and mine that, this can be achieved by running a full node or by runn=
ing
> a SPV like node that ask other nodes for transactions.
>
> Once this protocol is developed and standarised we as a community could
> require all pools to use it (because its better, because is more
> trustless...), not by imposing it but by recommending it.
>
> Pool owners could send some instructions using this protocol to the miner
> about how many transactions to include per block (some pools want small
> blocks), how many 0 fee transactions to include, how much is the minimum =
fee
> per Kb to include transactions and some info about the Coinbase field in =
the
> block.
>
> This way is impossible to perform some of the possible 51% attacks:
>
> A pool owner cant mine a new chain (selfish mining) (pool clients have a =
SPV
> or full node that has checkpoints and ask other peers about the length of
> the chain)
> A pool owner can't perform double spends or reverse transactions (pool
> clients know all the transactions relayed to the network, they know if th=
ey
> are already included on a block)
> A pool owner cant decide which transactions not to include (but they can
> configure the minimum fee).
> A pool owner cant get all the rewards by avoiding other pools from mining
> blocks (Because the pool client knows the last block independently that i=
s
> from his pool or other).
>
>
> The only thing that a 51% pool owner can do is to shut down his pool and
> drop the hashrate by 51% because he does not control the miners.
>
> If the pool owner owns all the hardware in the pool my proposal is not
> valid, if the pool clients dont use this protocol my proposal is not vali=
d.
>
>
> I want to know if this is possible or its been developed or there is alre=
ady
> a working protocol that works like this, also I want to read other people=
's
> ways to address this threat, thanks for reading.
>
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------=
-----
> HPCC Systems Open Source Big Data Platform from LexisNexis Risk Solutions
> Find What Matters Most in Your Big Data with HPCC Systems
> Open Source. Fast. Scalable. Simple. Ideal for Dirty Data.
> Leverages Graph Analysis for Fast Processing & Easy Data Exploration
> http://p.sf.net/sfu/hpccsystems
> _______________________________________________
> Bitcoin-development mailing list
> Bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development
>
|
