summaryrefslogtreecommitdiff
path: root/76/efd956fcf0a405ba56d55ff3afa398c3b77f60
blob: 46f3276ae2ec432709afd437b8e21e0ecba83cfe (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
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
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
184
185
186
187
188
189
190
191
192
193
194
195
196
197
198
199
200
201
202
203
204
205
206
207
208
209
210
211
212
213
214
215
216
217
218
219
220
221
222
223
224
225
226
227
228
229
230
231
232
233
234
235
236
237
238
239
240
241
242
243
244
245
246
247
248
249
250
251
252
253
254
255
256
257
258
259
260
261
262
263
264
265
266
267
268
269
270
271
272
273
274
275
276
277
278
279
280
281
282
283
284
285
286
287
288
289
290
291
292
293
294
295
296
297
298
299
300
301
302
303
304
305
306
307
308
309
310
311
312
313
314
315
316
317
318
319
320
321
322
323
324
325
326
327
328
329
330
331
332
333
334
335
336
337
338
339
340
341
342
343
344
345
346
347
348
349
350
351
352
353
354
355
356
357
358
359
360
361
362
363
364
365
366
367
368
369
370
371
372
373
374
375
376
377
378
379
380
381
382
383
384
385
386
387
388
389
390
391
392
393
394
395
396
397
398
399
400
401
402
403
404
405
406
407
408
409
410
411
412
413
414
415
416
417
418
419
420
421
422
423
424
425
426
427
428
429
430
431
432
433
434
435
436
437
438
439
440
441
442
443
444
445
446
447
448
449
450
451
452
453
454
455
456
457
458
459
460
461
462
463
464
465
466
467
468
469
470
471
472
473
474
475
476
477
478
479
480
481
482
483
484
485
486
487
488
489
490
491
492
493
494
495
496
497
498
499
500
501
502
503
504
505
506
507
508
509
510
511
512
513
514
515
516
517
518
519
520
521
522
523
524
525
526
527
528
529
530
531
532
533
534
535
536
537
538
539
540
541
542
543
544
545
546
547
548
549
550
551
552
553
554
555
556
557
558
559
560
561
562
563
564
565
566
567
568
569
570
571
572
573
574
575
576
577
578
579
580
581
582
583
584
585
586
587
588
589
590
591
592
593
594
595
596
597
598
599
600
601
602
603
604
605
606
607
608
609
610
611
612
613
614
615
616
617
618
619
620
621
622
623
624
625
626
627
628
629
630
631
632
633
634
635
636
637
638
639
640
641
642
643
644
645
646
647
648
649
650
651
652
653
654
655
Return-Path: <willtech@live.com.au>
Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org
	[172.17.192.35])
	by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 650C718E6
	for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
	Sat,  3 Aug 2019 00:51:19 +0000 (UTC)
X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6
Received: from APC01-HK2-obe.outbound.protection.outlook.com
	(mail-oln040092255087.outbound.protection.outlook.com [40.92.255.87])
	by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6024B712
	for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
	Sat,  3 Aug 2019 00:51:16 +0000 (UTC)
ARC-Seal: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; s=arcselector9901; d=microsoft.com; cv=none;
	b=FsrYCZ3GwzgxcxaMWI+7UoUNOkM8dAqGETCRSiTHnhZ7hUK8wpIFEuCH6amHTaHqr0WtqC5DO1IhwoTkg4/joFGF8LuviRKCgW42NuBXjcaBmHyHTnuQ8OUM+C1nvwNG7p4kpWwglJgPNqNZj8NLst7Oe9C3Mv4UqcCM/wC9wlUU2y+ypxp3G8CQJ0+zmZXyddBINHG12WzDd/GVq8wdkit0JlsfBRhm6Kx2QhtE0NpBiY4Bdvk5dMCaYt639/AEp2ScsVm8xfolxKtCjtgllpDo0biM8L1voRCGBcQANxycWpEpi/sE/DnDJENe0mXNN2bbrX8Zuw0OwfmTy/YoVA==
ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=microsoft.com; 
	s=arcselector9901;
	h=From:Date:Subject:Message-ID:Content-Type:MIME-Version:X-MS-Exchange-SenderADCheck;
	bh=DQu/DtjXnfqXcv34HVwF6+vtPSJjxz3zlOOFWT8m1JA=;
	b=cSIsi/50/+IwtoLOOhaznziheXxapCG1k1nLbG49nmo4Pg1I7Yz7Urh4d52tojUaenGh7bL5lXScpMWdsZ9xB3mbXwyS9AztZki95CXy0uBiKfbJps4u2DFCucIt06jAjidEd1FvYkBLVQik98//hWfRctmK6TVjioB/K+mavFDH62kg//67CH4QglZ675W8QrR8Yhy/7n+sCJRxHXFeDq4oCQnhosf7kTNZoyvKJx89LK+vzQyGgTJnzYCqp66TA8KUgX9N9MdWOFEky6Q1Dv4Mon65ZiDXeFIkGRbFyj/p87XtbK2KAZFNTHao5BaX3OLfUAjsyontBlRAMDf8GQ==
ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; mx.microsoft.com
	1;spf=none;dmarc=none;dkim=none;arc=none
Received: from SG2APC01FT009.eop-APC01.prod.protection.outlook.com
	(10.152.250.57) by SG2APC01HT076.eop-APC01.prod.protection.outlook.com
	(10.152.251.173) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2,
	cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_CBC_SHA384) id 15.20.2136.14;
	Sat, 3 Aug 2019 00:51:13 +0000
Received: from PS2P216MB0179.KORP216.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM (10.152.250.57) by
	SG2APC01FT009.mail.protection.outlook.com (10.152.250.158) with
	Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2,
	cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id
	15.20.2136.14 via Frontend Transport; Sat, 3 Aug 2019 00:51:12 +0000
Received: from PS2P216MB0179.KORP216.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM
	([fe80::d894:e42b:554e:326d]) by PS2P216MB0179.KORP216.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM
	([fe80::d894:e42b:554e:326d%6]) with mapi id 15.20.2136.010;
	Sat, 3 Aug 2019 00:51:12 +0000
From: LORD HIS EXCELLENCY JAMES HRMH <willtech@live.com.au>
To: Ethan Heilman <eth3rs@gmail.com>, Bitcoin Dev
	<bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>,
	"Kenshiro []" <tensiam@hotmail.com>
Thread-Topic: [bitcoin-dev] Add a moving checkpoint to the Bitcoin protocol
Thread-Index: AQHVR5sdyaW9NUkjL067/8euo+yr/KbkwSWAgAAJxaeAAAS0t4AC+h2AgAAG9aGAAMoOKw==
Date: Sat, 3 Aug 2019 00:51:12 +0000
Message-ID: <PS2P216MB0179F9419B116F333EBF10799DD80@PS2P216MB0179.KORP216.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM>
References: <DB6PR10MB1832329BC8D151DC18F1E6CEA6DF0@DB6PR10MB1832.EURPRD10.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM>
	<28454621.Lge63Ifvux@dprfs-d5766>
	<DB6PR10MB1832F1E966CD83BC662985BDA6DF0@DB6PR10MB1832.EURPRD10.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM>
	<DB6PR10MB183271245AAE84FB9AC96474A6DF0@DB6PR10MB1832.EURPRD10.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM>,
	<CAEM=y+UCdW2__nmQhWuL2FYvL6WKdBsF31WDFZUSdXPvgM2bvg@mail.gmail.com>,
	<DB6PR10MB1832110D67FB7FBD1AF5E3EDA6D90@DB6PR10MB1832.EURPRD10.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM>
In-Reply-To: <DB6PR10MB1832110D67FB7FBD1AF5E3EDA6D90@DB6PR10MB1832.EURPRD10.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM>
Accept-Language: en-AU, en-US
Content-Language: en-AU
X-MS-Has-Attach: 
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: 
x-incomingtopheadermarker: OriginalChecksum:05B409AB4AD00F070B7F38B8C7733C240E2EC8C4A7C98D2AEC287E9DBDF7D95E;
	UpperCasedChecksum:AD71AA0482EB2B56B0326878A8A4D118CC0231BF2493DB8E06A2021745D8CE79;
	SizeAsReceived:7289; Count:43
x-ms-exchange-messagesentrepresentingtype: 1
x-tmn: [R9difbMTtjzBmwG8kHBh0I0vB0WZFM1N]
x-ms-publictraffictype: Email
x-incomingheadercount: 43
x-eopattributedmessage: 0
x-ms-exchange-slblob-mailprops: =?iso-8859-1?Q?h70CqCTTlEHTkraj2UDLx0aqoBzdZXyqddGDHiO5KyPRT3f1wkjspJ+pmn?=
	=?iso-8859-1?Q?b+Oehxfqeibalt10MvbvQbGsrgNaSSMOM4ExuBFGqBHwDJDMcCoKqsaidH?=
	=?iso-8859-1?Q?06UytifyejimCIfrMINlsed6IG/9lKVT/jlxg1Bbn7IS42z5o7oUM3tUV4?=
	=?iso-8859-1?Q?D9Vk4YolUJYNlPNaUWnpNLmxcnDATQjd/SIGpljCndj1ry4L9tJGqEpKtC?=
	=?iso-8859-1?Q?sL8bwN4xfwstMh2BhuJZEB8WkQJWbuLPDx8mwlXThviQu0/lvkPdLQCgww?=
	=?iso-8859-1?Q?YyOE9Y0ohVXgQ1x5vPQCFIggScvT97YECMeGxtH3sk9t+8gkR8FG9Zro33?=
	=?iso-8859-1?Q?SZeW6myoWEtkCiMBxK6r+GXdvV3yoAx6MaNZNpCwckv+AqXrzeMEzTQvss?=
	=?iso-8859-1?Q?TdgBghmlkvMvs05pAdC4TtwNpb2Pot4dYn78idg+kTjjJPOmy9epjeFHqD?=
	=?iso-8859-1?Q?tYUZkJ8ZEmkU6aMcfc41J/2a2xAF//GIW1rDrSZGsMjkCuuJsIVf0gAL0g?=
	=?iso-8859-1?Q?Y4lfm2TZQ6xjhXJu0kxhHhKr7wr0F6dZLFeFkdQjzVacW+SWF76XXg5KsQ?=
	=?iso-8859-1?Q?w8XnQtuPv4+xUjUpE9NqJua4Sm/LhV5CWc8xG2kYR62smi7+5rO9Z10ijw?=
	=?iso-8859-1?Q?6Fb1cSWqwVwWPXrgoQjg9sEWl4tliGKMfZ/+suYqPM83ERn2fACsc6OdWh?=
	=?iso-8859-1?Q?5+/KC/mucwXk6vXOJyyJqoD2ldvi6k3Kr4yKOFWPUDoFMeVeBkji9CNPb3?=
	=?iso-8859-1?Q?e1Nl4ATBsRb9Q8qJIj6DBjb9HKZdPshlmGZ5NkuPsWOcddiTkjVcxyYdh1?=
	=?iso-8859-1?Q?dt8/LnqgbTVe9mRwqxJB04cwYlvbgQZVlEv9WtTXkgPm43AAhhrtQ6FFRO?=
	=?iso-8859-1?Q?iqnxJ1A8zS8Qg4hgmr9p6shNzxYOJTwB/y3gnE0WnVcDuwuWCNf5bnZwEE?=
	=?iso-8859-1?Q?whsiRPf1P6EJ9Uu3S0HBiQzsx0SA5xDX7vSQnJVAiMDqlHWGYtkbLvsVz+?=
	=?iso-8859-1?Q?T3Beans/yFC52+bz+t7KVxiCHSrJdONRMBNsl1wJEmPA05Mjxl9pbFnV4S?=
	=?iso-8859-1?Q?gzwHgk4cbodDYtdEy18IElPs6o2HhI4L+fVYl6ocpb+Y?=
x-microsoft-antispam: BCL:0; PCL:0;
	RULEID:(2390118)(5050001)(7020095)(20181119110)(201702061078)(5061506573)(5061507331)(1603103135)(2017031320274)(201702181274)(2017031322404)(2017031323274)(2017031324274)(1601125500)(1603101475)(1701031045);
	SRVR:SG2APC01HT076; 
x-ms-traffictypediagnostic: SG2APC01HT076:
x-ms-exchange-purlcount: 2
x-microsoft-antispam-message-info: wgOXK4+QKbyXQYkRkrNaG01Mtymt9GJ9bmEdOR51woCK8JCpsToDL8Z1KPdUtkH6D0CI9BY1BeN7SOgZrIwJlySfj1Qlwa791DD14SBc/dN2li+Q9F1rtCsS5e1Ih7q9U+k7qtRd6jxgJD2KUWl/LHrnEl//lE2z1fhKKAeVdD9oQK6UgSYrv5FXhBU3lX7w
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
	boundary="_000_PS2P216MB0179F9419B116F333EBF10799DD80PS2P216MB0179KORP_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-OriginatorOrg: outlook.com
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-RMS-PersistedConsumerOrg: 00000000-0000-0000-0000-000000000000
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-Network-Message-Id: 21002fa3-0fe9-48ef-1837-08d717acaeb3
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-rms-persistedconsumerorg: 00000000-0000-0000-0000-000000000000
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-originalarrivaltime: 03 Aug 2019 00:51:12.8251 (UTC)
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-fromentityheader: Internet
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-id: 84df9e7f-e9f6-40af-b435-aaaaaaaaaaaa
X-MS-Exchange-Transport-CrossTenantHeadersStamped: SG2APC01HT076
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,HTML_MESSAGE,
	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
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Sat, 03 Aug 2019 02:25:17 +0000
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Add a moving checkpoint to the Bitcoin protocol
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: Sat, 03 Aug 2019 00:51:19 -0000

--_000_PS2P216MB0179F9419B116F333EBF10799DD80PS2P216MB0179KORP_
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

I have but one point to make in a brief catch-up read over.

With the current protocol the fix to a network split is simple, the longest=
 chain win. But with the moving checkpoint I'm proposing we have a problem =
if both chains began to differ more than N blocks ago, the forks are perman=
ent. So we need an additional rule to ignore the moving checkpoint, a limit=
 of X blocks:

It is not to be considered the longest chain, it is to be considered the lo=
ngest chain with the most proof of work.

Regards,
LORD HIS EXCELLENCY JAMES HRMH
<https://earn.com/willtech>


________________________________
From: bitcoin-dev-bounces@lists.linuxfoundation.org <bitcoin-dev-bounces@li=
sts.linuxfoundation.org> on behalf of Kenshiro [] via bitcoin-dev <bitcoin-=
dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
Sent: Friday, 2 August 2019 11:08 PM
To: Ethan Heilman <eth3rs@gmail.com>; Bitcoin Dev <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxf=
oundation.org>
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Add a moving checkpoint to the Bitcoin protocol

Hi all,

Very good points. I did some clarifications in a private conversation, the =
new rule is making the moving checkpoint valid only if the difference in bl=
ocks between the main chain and the new fork is smaller than X blocks, like=
 for example 3 days of blocks, so after a long network split everyone can f=
inally follow the longest chain:

With the current protocol the fix to a network split is simple, the longest=
 chain win. But with the moving checkpoint I'm proposing we have a problem =
if both chains began to differ more than N blocks ago, the forks are perman=
ent. So we need an additional rule to ignore the moving checkpoint, a limit=
 of X blocks:

If a node sees a fork longer than his main chain, and the fork has at least=
 X blocks more than the main chain, then the node ignore the moving checkpo=
int rule, and it follows the fork, the longest chain.

So as an example, the moving checkpoint could be 24 hours of blocks, and th=
e limit of X blocks, the blocks of 3 days.

So we have 2 possible situations to consider:

- 51% attack:  the blocks older than 24 hours are protected against a histo=
ry rewrite during at least 3 days, in that time developers could release an=
 emergency release with another mining algorithm to stop the attack.

- Network split: if the network split is older than N blocks, we have 2 per=
manent forks (or chains), but in 3 days (or more) the blockchain heights wi=
ll differ in more than X blocks (the blocks of 3 days) because there will b=
e more miners in one chain than in the other so finally the loser chain wil=
l be abandoned and everyone will follow the longest chain.

It could be even more conservative, like 48 hours for the moving checkpoint=
 and a block limit of 7 days of blocks.

Regards,



________________________________
From: Ethan Heilman <eth3rs@gmail.com>
Sent: Friday, August 2, 2019 14:19
To: Kenshiro [] <tensiam@hotmail.com>; Bitcoin Dev <bitcoin-dev@lists.linux=
foundation.org>
Cc: Alistair Mann <al@pectw.net>
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Add a moving checkpoint to the Bitcoin protocol

Attack 1:
I partition (i.e. eclipse) a bunch of nodes from the network this partition=
 contains no mining power . I then mine 145 blocks for this partition. I do=
n't even need 51% of the mining power because I'm not competing with any ot=
her miners. Under this rule this partition will hardfork from the network p=
ermanently. Under current rules this partition will be able to rejoin the n=
etwork as the least weight chain will be orphaned.

Attack 2:
I pre-mine 145 blocks. A node goes offline for 24 hours, when it rejoins I =
feed it 145 blocks which fork off from the consensus chain. I have 24+24 ho=
urs to mine these 145 blocks so I should be able to do this with 25% of the=
 current hash rate at the time the node went offline. Under your rule each =
of these offline-->online nodes I attack this way will hardfork themselves =
from the rest of the network.

I believe a moving-checkpoint rule as describe above would make Bitcoin mor=
e vulnerable to 51% attacks.

A safer rule would be if a node detects a fork with both sides of the split=
 having  length > 144 blocks, it halts and requests user intervention to de=
termine which chain to follow.  I don't think 144 blocks is a great number =
to use here as 24 hours is very short. I suspect you could improve the secu=
rity of the rule by making the number of blocks a fork most reach to halt t=
he network proportional to the difference in time between the timestamp in =
the block prior to the fork and the current time. I am **NOT** proposing Bi=
tcoin adopt such a rule.

NXT has a fundamentally different security model as it uses Proof-of-stake =
rather than Proof-of-Work.

On Wed, Jul 31, 2019 at 2:37 PM Kenshiro [] via bitcoin-dev <bitcoin-dev@li=
sts.linuxfoundation.org<mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>> wrot=
e:
P.S.: To be clearer, in this example I set an N value of 144 blocks, which =
is approximately 24 hours.

________________________________
From: Kenshiro [] <tensiam@hotmail.com<mailto:tensiam@hotmail.com>>
Sent: Wednesday, July 31, 2019 16:40
To: Alistair Mann <al@pectw.net<mailto:al@pectw.net>>; Bitcoin Protocol Dis=
cussion <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org<mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.lin=
uxfoundation.org>>
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Add a moving checkpoint to the Bitcoin protocol

>>> How would a (potentially, state-sponsored) netsplit lasting longer than=
 N be
handled?

It would be detected by the community much before reaching the reorg limit =
of N blocks (it's 24 hours) so nodes could stop until the netsplit is fixed=
.

In the extreme case no one notice the network split during more than N bloc=
ks (24 hours) and there are 2 permanent forks longer than N, nodes from one=
 branch could delete their local history so they would join the other branc=
h.

Regards,


________________________________
From: Alistair Mann <al@pectw.net<mailto:al@pectw.net>>
Sent: Wednesday, July 31, 2019 15:59
To: Kenshiro [] <tensiam@hotmail.com<mailto:tensiam@hotmail.com>>; Bitcoin =
Protocol Discussion <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org<mailto:bitcoin-d=
ev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>>
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Add a moving checkpoint to the Bitcoin protocol

On Wednesday 31 Jul 2019 12:28:58 Kenshiro [] via bitcoin-dev wrote:

> I would like to propose that a "moving checkpoint" is added to the Bitcoi=
n
> protocol. It's a very simple rule already implemented in NXT coin:
>
> - A node will ignore any new block under nodeBlockHeight - N, so the
> blockchain becomes truly immutable after N blocks, even during a 51% atta=
ck
> which thanks to the moving checkpoint can't rewrite history older than th=
e
> last N blocks.

How would a (potentially, state-sponsored) netsplit lasting longer than N b=
e
handled?
--
Alistair Mann

_______________________________________________
bitcoin-dev mailing list
bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org<mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundat=
ion.org>
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev

--_000_PS2P216MB0179F9419B116F333EBF10799DD80PS2P216MB0179KORP_
Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv=3D"Content-Type" content=3D"text/html; charset=3Diso-8859-=
1">
<style type=3D"text/css" style=3D"display:none;"> P {margin-top:0;margin-bo=
ttom:0;} </style>
</head>
<body dir=3D"ltr">
<div style=3D"font-family: Calibri, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 12pt;=
 color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">
I have but one point to make in a brief catch-up read over.<br>
</div>
<blockquote style=3D"margin-top: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px;">
<div style=3D"font-family: Calibri, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 12pt;=
 color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">
<br>
</div>
<div style=3D"font-family: Calibri, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 12pt;=
 color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">
<b>With the current protocol the fix to a network split is simple, the long=
est chain win.</b> But with the moving checkpoint I'm proposing we have a p=
roblem if both chains began to differ more than N blocks ago, the forks are=
 permanent. So we need an additional
 rule to ignore the moving checkpoint, a limit of X blocks:<br>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div style=3D"font-family: Calibri, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 12pt;=
 color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">
&nbsp;<br>
</div>
<div style=3D"font-family: Calibri, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 12pt;=
 color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">
It is not to be considered the longest chain, it is to be considered the lo=
ngest chain
<u>with the most proof of work</u>.<br>
</div>
<div style=3D"font-family: Calibri, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 12pt;=
 color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">
<br>
</div>
<div id=3D"Signature">
<div></div>
<div></div>
<div style=3D"font-family:Calibri,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size:12pt; col=
or:rgb(0,0,0)">
</div>
<div style=3D"font-family:Calibri,Helvetica,sans-serif,serif,EmojiFont; fon=
t-size:12pt">
Regards,</div>
<div style=3D"font-family:Calibri,Helvetica,sans-serif,serif,EmojiFont; fon=
t-size:12pt">
LORD HIS EXCELLENCY JAMES HRMH</div>
<div style=3D"font-family:Calibri,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size:12pt; col=
or:rgb(0,0,0)">
<div><a href=3D"https://earn.com/willtech" title=3D"https://earn.com/willte=
ch"></a></div>
<div><br>
</div>
</div>
<div>
<div id=3D"appendonsend"></div>
<div style=3D"font-family:Calibri,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size:12pt; col=
or:rgb(0,0,0)">
<br>
</div>
<hr tabindex=3D"-1" style=3D"display:inline-block; width:98%">
<div id=3D"divRplyFwdMsg" dir=3D"ltr"><font style=3D"font-size:11pt" face=
=3D"Calibri, sans-serif" color=3D"#000000"><b>From:</b> bitcoin-dev-bounces=
@lists.linuxfoundation.org &lt;bitcoin-dev-bounces@lists.linuxfoundation.or=
g&gt; on behalf of Kenshiro [] via bitcoin-dev &lt;bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxf=
oundation.org&gt;<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Friday, 2 August 2019 11:08 PM<br>
<b>To:</b> Ethan Heilman &lt;eth3rs@gmail.com&gt;; Bitcoin Dev &lt;bitcoin-=
dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org&gt;<br>
<b>Subject:</b> Re: [bitcoin-dev] Add a moving checkpoint to the Bitcoin pr=
otocol</font>
<div>&nbsp;</div>
</div>
<div dir=3D"ltr">
<div style=3D"font-family:Calibri,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size:12pt; col=
or:rgb(0,0,0)">
Hi all,</div>
<div style=3D"font-family:Calibri,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size:12pt; col=
or:rgb(0,0,0)">
<br>
</div>
<div style=3D"font-family:Calibri,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size:12pt; col=
or:rgb(0,0,0)">
Very good points. I did some clarifications in a private conversation, the =
new rule is making the moving checkpoint valid only if the difference in bl=
ocks between the main chain and the new fork is smaller than X blocks, like=
 for example 3 days of blocks, so
 after a long network split everyone can finally follow the longest chain:<=
/div>
<div style=3D"font-family:Calibri,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size:12pt; col=
or:rgb(0,0,0)">
<br>
</div>
<div style=3D"font-family:Calibri,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size:12pt; col=
or:rgb(0,0,0)">
With the current protocol the fix to a network split is simple, the longest=
 chain win. But with the moving checkpoint I'm proposing we have a problem =
if both chains began to differ more than N blocks ago, the forks are perman=
ent. So we need an additional rule
 to ignore the moving checkpoint, a limit of X blocks:<br>
</div>
<div style=3D"font-family:Calibri,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size:12pt; col=
or:rgb(0,0,0)">
<div><br>
</div>
<div>If a node sees a fork longer than his main chain, and the fork has at =
least X blocks more than the main chain, then the node ignore the moving ch=
eckpoint rule, and it follows the fork, the longest chain.<br>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>So as an example, the moving checkpoint could be 24 hours of blocks, a=
nd the limit of X blocks, the blocks of 3 days.
<br>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>So we have 2 possible situations to consider:<br>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>- 51% attack: &nbsp;the blocks older than 24 hours are protected again=
st a history rewrite during at least 3 days, in that time developers could =
release an emergency release with another mining algorithm to stop the atta=
ck.<br>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<span>- Network split: if the network split is older than N blocks, we have=
 2 permanent forks (or chains), but in 3 days (or more) the blockchain heig=
hts will differ in more than X blocks (the blocks of 3 days) because there =
will be more miners in one chain
 than in the other so finally the loser chain will be abandoned and everyon=
e will follow the longest chain.</span><br>
</div>
<div style=3D"font-family:Calibri,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size:12pt; col=
or:rgb(0,0,0)">
<span><br>
</span></div>
<div style=3D"font-family:Calibri,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size:12pt; col=
or:rgb(0,0,0)">
It could be even more conservative, like 48 hours for the moving checkpoint=
 and a block limit of 7 days of blocks.</div>
<div style=3D"font-family:Calibri,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size:12pt; col=
or:rgb(0,0,0)">
<br>
</div>
<div style=3D"font-family:Calibri,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size:12pt; col=
or:rgb(0,0,0)">
Regards,</div>
<div style=3D"font-family:Calibri,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size:12pt; col=
or:rgb(0,0,0)">
<br>
</div>
<div style=3D"font-family:Calibri,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size:12pt; col=
or:rgb(0,0,0)">
<br>
</div>
<div>
<div id=3D"x_appendonsend"></div>
<div style=3D"font-family:Calibri,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size:12pt; col=
or:rgb(0,0,0)">
<br>
</div>
<hr tabindex=3D"-1" style=3D"display:inline-block; width:98%">
<div id=3D"x_divRplyFwdMsg" dir=3D"ltr"><font style=3D"font-size:11pt" face=
=3D"Calibri, sans-serif" color=3D"#000000"><b>From:</b> Ethan Heilman &lt;e=
th3rs@gmail.com&gt;<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Friday, August 2, 2019 14:19<br>
<b>To:</b> Kenshiro [] &lt;tensiam@hotmail.com&gt;; Bitcoin Dev &lt;bitcoin=
-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org&gt;<br>
<b>Cc:</b> Alistair Mann &lt;al@pectw.net&gt;<br>
<b>Subject:</b> Re: [bitcoin-dev] Add a moving checkpoint to the Bitcoin pr=
otocol</font>
<div>&nbsp;</div>
</div>
<div>
<div dir=3D"auto">
<div dir=3D"ltr">Attack 1:<br>
I partition (i.e. eclipse) a bunch of nodes from the network this partition=
 contains no mining power . I then mine 145 blocks for this partition. I do=
n't even need 51% of the mining power because I'm not competing with any ot=
her miners. Under this rule this
 partition will hardfork from the network permanently. Under current rules =
this partition will be able to rejoin the network as the least weight chain=
 will be orphaned.<br>
<br>
Attack 2:<br>
I pre-mine 145 blocks. A node goes offline for 24 hours, when it rejoins I =
feed it 145 blocks which fork off from the consensus chain. I have 24&#43;2=
4 hours to mine these 145 blocks so I should be able to do this with 25% of=
 the current hash rate at the time the
 node went offline. Under your rule each of these offline--&gt;online nodes=
 I attack this way will hardfork themselves from the rest of the network.<b=
r>
<br>
I believe a moving-checkpoint rule as describe above would make Bitcoin mor=
e vulnerable to 51% attacks.<br>
<br>
A safer rule would be if a node detects a fork with both sides of the split=
 having&nbsp; length &gt; 144 blocks, it halts and requests user interventi=
on to determine which chain to follow.&nbsp; I don't think 144 blocks is a =
great number to use here as 24 hours is very
 short. I suspect you could improve the security of the rule by making the =
number of blocks a fork most reach to halt the network proportional to the =
difference in time between the timestamp in the block prior to the fork and=
 the current time. I am **NOT**
 proposing Bitcoin adopt such a rule.<br>
<br>
NXT has a fundamentally different security model as it uses Proof-of-stake =
rather than Proof-of-Work.</div>
</div>
<br>
<div class=3D"x_x_gmail_quote">
<div dir=3D"ltr" class=3D"x_x_gmail_attr">On Wed, Jul 31, 2019 at 2:37 PM K=
enshiro [] via bitcoin-dev &lt;<a href=3D"mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfou=
ndation.org" target=3D"_blank" rel=3D"noreferrer">bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfo=
undation.org</a>&gt; wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote class=3D"x_x_gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex; bo=
rder-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204); padding-left:1ex">
<div dir=3D"ltr">
<div style=3D"font-family:Calibri,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size:12pt; col=
or:rgb(0,0,0)">
P.S.: To be clearer, in this example I set an N value of 144 blocks, which =
is approximately 24 hours.</div>
<div>
<div id=3D"x_x_m_-1010116091299868493gmail-m_6888503219858923550appendonsen=
d"></div>
<div style=3D"font-family:Calibri,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size:12pt; col=
or:rgb(0,0,0)">
<br>
</div>
<hr style=3D"display:inline-block; width:98%">
<div id=3D"x_x_m_-1010116091299868493gmail-m_6888503219858923550divRplyFwdM=
sg" dir=3D"ltr">
<font style=3D"font-size:11pt" face=3D"Calibri, sans-serif" color=3D"#00000=
0"><b>From:</b> Kenshiro [] &lt;<a href=3D"mailto:tensiam@hotmail.com" targ=
et=3D"_blank" rel=3D"noreferrer">tensiam@hotmail.com</a>&gt;<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Wednesday, July 31, 2019 16:40<br>
<b>To:</b> Alistair Mann &lt;<a href=3D"mailto:al@pectw.net" target=3D"_bla=
nk" rel=3D"noreferrer">al@pectw.net</a>&gt;; Bitcoin Protocol Discussion &l=
t;<a href=3D"mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org" target=3D"_blank=
" rel=3D"noreferrer">bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org</a>&gt;<br>
<b>Subject:</b> Re: [bitcoin-dev] Add a moving checkpoint to the Bitcoin pr=
otocol</font>
<div>&nbsp;</div>
</div>
<div dir=3D"ltr">
<div style=3D"font-family:Calibri,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size:12pt; col=
or:rgb(0,0,0)">
&gt;&gt;&gt;&nbsp;<span>How would a (potentially, state-sponsored) netsplit=
 lasting longer than N be
<br>
</span><span>handled? &nbsp;</span></div>
<div style=3D"font-family:Calibri,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size:12pt; col=
or:rgb(0,0,0)">
<span><br>
</span></div>
<div style=3D"font-family:Calibri,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size:12pt; col=
or:rgb(0,0,0)">
<span>It would be detected by the community much before reaching the reorg =
limit of N blocks (it's 24 hours) so nodes could stop until the netsplit is=
 fixed.&nbsp;</span></div>
<div style=3D"font-family:Calibri,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size:12pt; col=
or:rgb(0,0,0)">
<span><br>
</span></div>
<div style=3D"font-family:Calibri,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size:12pt; col=
or:rgb(0,0,0)">
<span>In the extreme case no one notice the network split during more than =
N blocks (24 hours) and there are 2 permanent forks longer than N, n</span>=
odes from one branch could delete their local history so they would join th=
e other branch.</div>
<div style=3D"font-family:Calibri,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size:12pt; col=
or:rgb(0,0,0)">
<br>
</div>
<div style=3D"font-family:Calibri,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size:12pt; col=
or:rgb(0,0,0)">
Regards,</div>
<div style=3D"font-family:Calibri,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size:12pt; col=
or:rgb(0,0,0)">
<br>
</div>
<div>
<div id=3D"x_x_m_-1010116091299868493gmail-m_6888503219858923550x_appendons=
end"></div>
<div style=3D"font-family:Calibri,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size:12pt; col=
or:rgb(0,0,0)">
<br>
</div>
<hr style=3D"display:inline-block; width:98%">
<div id=3D"x_x_m_-1010116091299868493gmail-m_6888503219858923550x_divRplyFw=
dMsg" dir=3D"ltr">
<font style=3D"font-size:11pt" face=3D"Calibri, sans-serif" color=3D"#00000=
0"><b>From:</b> Alistair Mann &lt;<a href=3D"mailto:al@pectw.net" target=3D=
"_blank" rel=3D"noreferrer">al@pectw.net</a>&gt;<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Wednesday, July 31, 2019 15:59<br>
<b>To:</b> Kenshiro [] &lt;<a href=3D"mailto:tensiam@hotmail.com" target=3D=
"_blank" rel=3D"noreferrer">tensiam@hotmail.com</a>&gt;; Bitcoin Protocol D=
iscussion &lt;<a href=3D"mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org" targ=
et=3D"_blank" rel=3D"noreferrer">bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org</a>&=
gt;<br>
<b>Subject:</b> Re: [bitcoin-dev] Add a moving checkpoint to the Bitcoin pr=
otocol</font>
<div>&nbsp;</div>
</div>
<div class=3D"x_x_m_-1010116091299868493gmail-m_6888503219858923550x_BodyFr=
agment">
<font size=3D"2"><span style=3D"font-size:11pt">
<div class=3D"x_x_m_-1010116091299868493gmail-m_6888503219858923550x_PlainT=
ext">On Wednesday 31 Jul 2019 12:28:58 Kenshiro [] via bitcoin-dev wrote:<b=
r>
<br>
&gt; I would like to propose that a &quot;moving checkpoint&quot; is added =
to the Bitcoin<br>
&gt; protocol. It's a very simple rule already implemented in NXT coin:<br>
&gt; <br>
&gt; - A node will ignore any new block under nodeBlockHeight - N, so the<b=
r>
&gt; blockchain becomes truly immutable after N blocks, even during a 51% a=
ttack<br>
&gt; which thanks to the moving checkpoint can't rewrite history older than=
 the<br>
&gt; last N blocks.<br>
<br>
How would a (potentially, state-sponsored) netsplit lasting longer than N b=
e <br>
handled?&nbsp; <br>
-- <br>
Alistair Mann<br>
<br>
</div>
</span></font></div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
_______________________________________________<br>
bitcoin-dev mailing list<br>
<a href=3D"mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org" target=3D"_blank" =
rel=3D"noreferrer">bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org</a><br>
<a href=3D"https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev" =
rel=3D"noreferrer noreferrer" target=3D"_blank">https://lists.linuxfoundati=
on.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev</a><br>
</blockquote>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</body>
</html>

--_000_PS2P216MB0179F9419B116F333EBF10799DD80PS2P216MB0179KORP_--