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
|
Received: from sog-mx-2.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.192]
helo=mx.sourceforge.net)
by sfs-ml-4.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76)
(envelope-from <gavinandresen@gmail.com>) id 1VdqXf-0005BB-5I
for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Wed, 06 Nov 2013 00:00:15 +0000
Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-2.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of gmail.com
designates 74.125.82.177 as permitted sender)
client-ip=74.125.82.177; envelope-from=gavinandresen@gmail.com;
helo=mail-we0-f177.google.com;
Received: from mail-we0-f177.google.com ([74.125.82.177])
by sog-mx-2.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128)
(Exim 4.76) id 1VdqXe-0002ui-9M
for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Wed, 06 Nov 2013 00:00:14 +0000
Received: by mail-we0-f177.google.com with SMTP id x55so4179617wes.36
for <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>;
Tue, 05 Nov 2013 16:00:08 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.194.241.228 with SMTP id wl4mr207948wjc.2.1383696004162;
Tue, 05 Nov 2013 16:00:04 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.194.156.163 with HTTP; Tue, 5 Nov 2013 16:00:04 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <CANAnSg1vrUZPuioZ7LQcSK4MeiWWWQ2nggnDYp5VP4WdhtErhQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <N1-9eAtMHauq2@Safe-mail.net>
<CANAnSg2sUfRH0mYEir_XKUz-iOYRpdzNgM-AJ7t-H=SOa4wBig@mail.gmail.com>
<CAAS2fgTofL7ura17KjUR5pL_fOOM=a0gdZTZ7seVMRPOPi66xw@mail.gmail.com>
<CANAnSg1vrUZPuioZ7LQcSK4MeiWWWQ2nggnDYp5VP4WdhtErhQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 6 Nov 2013 10:00:04 +1000
Message-ID: <CABsx9T3LxHy=mqoZQyK+G33ikpbnLyRemBGYn3T22H4dERm4yQ@mail.gmail.com>
From: Gavin Andresen <gavinandresen@gmail.com>
To: Drak <drak@zikula.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=089e01493c32ce2a9d04ea76d465
X-Spam-Score: -0.6 (/)
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
(gavinandresen[at]gmail.com)
-0.0 SPF_PASS SPF: sender matches SPF record
1.0 HTML_MESSAGE BODY: HTML included in message
-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: 1VdqXe-0002ui-9M
Cc: Bitcoin Dev <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>
Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] Possible Solution To SM Attack
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: Wed, 06 Nov 2013 00:00:15 -0000
--089e01493c32ce2a9d04ea76d465
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
> What do you think?
>
I would like to be convinced that there is, actually, a real-world problem
before thinking about potential solutions.
I'd like to see more analysis of the proposed selfish-mining algorithm at a
particular share-of-network and gamma=0 (assume second-broadcast blocks
always lose, to make the math easier). I can't reproduce the finding in the
paper if I take into account the "opportunity cost" of working on more
blocks in the private chain that might be orphaned instead of always simply
extending the public chain, but it is very possible my little brain is
missing something obvious.
--
--
Gavin Andresen
--089e01493c32ce2a9d04ea76d465
Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
<div dir=3D"ltr"><br><div class=3D"gmail_extra"><div class=3D"gmail_quote">=
<blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1p=
x #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div dir=3D"ltr"><div class=3D"gmail_extra">=
<div class=3D"gmail_quote">
<div>What do you think?</div><span class=3D"HOEnZb"><font color=3D"#888888"=
>
<div></div></font></span></div></div></div></blockquote></div><div class=3D=
"gmail_extra"><br></div><div class=3D"gmail_extra">I would like to be convi=
nced that there is, actually, a real-world problem before thinking about po=
tential solutions.</div>
<div class=3D"gmail_extra"><br></div><div class=3D"gmail_extra">I'd lik=
e to see more analysis of the proposed selfish-mining algorithm at a partic=
ular share-of-network and gamma=3D0 (assume second-broadcast blocks always =
lose, to make the math easier). I can't reproduce the finding in the pa=
per if I take into account the "opportunity cost" of working on m=
ore blocks in the private chain that might be orphaned instead of always si=
mply extending the public chain, but it is very possible my little brain is=
missing something obvious.<br>
</div><div><br></div>-- <br>--<br>Gavin Andresen<br>
</div><div class=3D"gmail_extra"><br></div></div>
--089e01493c32ce2a9d04ea76d465--
|
