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
|
Return-Path: <luke@dashjr.org>
Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org
[172.17.192.35])
by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 397AD1097
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Mon, 1 Feb 2016 23:09:12 +0000 (UTC)
X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6
Received: from zinan.dashjr.org (zinan.dashjr.org [192.3.11.21])
by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A38CB16A
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Mon, 1 Feb 2016 23:09:11 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from ishibashi.localnet (unknown
[IPv6:2001:470:5:265:61b6:56a6:b03d:28d6])
(Authenticated sender: luke-jr)
by zinan.dashjr.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 5F0C338A9581;
Mon, 1 Feb 2016 23:08:36 +0000 (UTC)
X-Hashcash: 1:25:160201:lists@coryfields.com::A14IjGD0NpNUEUjA:6/GA
X-Hashcash: 1:25:160201:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org::gITV6r24Z5TLxzTn:dYm+i
From: Luke Dashjr <luke@dashjr.org>
To: Cory Fields <lists@coryfields.com>
Date: Mon, 1 Feb 2016 23:08:34 +0000
User-Agent: KMail/1.13.7 (Linux/4.1.13-gentoo; KDE/4.14.8; x86_64; ; )
References: <201601301850.03469.luke@dashjr.org>
<201602011946.24405.luke@dashjr.org>
<CAApLimgF2D97rAL8A9G36ULBE5tqKoXHFawYi35a0JiuQRu4Zg@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAApLimgF2D97rAL8A9G36ULBE5tqKoXHFawYi35a0JiuQRu4Zg@mail.gmail.com>
X-PGP-Key-Fingerprint: E463 A93F 5F31 17EE DE6C 7316 BD02 9424 21F4 889F
X-PGP-Key-ID: BD02942421F4889F
X-PGP-Keyserver: hkp://pgp.mit.edu
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: Text/Plain;
charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-Id: <201602012308.35215.luke@dashjr.org>
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.7 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_SBL,
RP_MATCHES_RCVD,URIBL_SBL autolearn=no version=3.3.1
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on
smtp1.linux-foundation.org
Cc: Bitcoin Dev <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] SegWit GBT updates
X-BeenThere: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Bitcoin Development 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: Mon, 01 Feb 2016 23:09:12 -0000
On Monday, February 01, 2016 9:43:33 PM Cory Fields wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 1, 2016 at 2:46 PM, Luke Dashjr <luke@dashjr.org> wrote:
> > Allowing for simpler cases both encourages the lazy case, and enables
> > pools to require miners use it. It also complicates the server-side
> > implementation somewhat, and could in some cases make it more vulnerable
> > to DoS attacks. Keep in mind that GBT is not merely a bitcoind protocol,
> > but is used between pool<->miner as well... For now, it makes sense to
> > leave
> > "default_witness_commitment" as a bitcoind-specific extension to
> > encourage adoption, but it seems better to leave it out of the standard
> > protocol. Let me know if this makes sense or if I'm overlooking
> > something.
>
> I think that's a bit of a loaded answer. What's to keep a pool from
> building its own commitment and requiring miners to use that? I don't
> see how providing the known-working commitment for the
> passed-in-hashes allows the pool/miner to do anything they couldn't
> already, with the exception of skipping some complexity. Please don't
> confuse encouraging with enabling.
Making it simpler to do a centralised implementation than a decentralised one,
is both enabling and encouraging. GBT has always been designed to make it
difficult to do in a centralised manner.
> What's the DoS vector here?
It's more work for the pool to provide it, similar to the "midstate" field was
with getwork. Someone performing a DoS needs to do less work to force the pool
to do complex calculations (unless the same transaction tree / commitment is
used for all miners, which would be an unfortunate limitation).
> >> The issue in particular here is that a non-trivial burden is thrust
> >> upon mining software, increasing the odds of bugs in the process.
> >
> > It can always use libblkmaker to handle the "heavy lifting"... In any
> > case, the calculation for the commitment isn't significantly more than
> > what it must already do for the stripped merkle tree.
>
> Agreed. However for the sake of initial adoption, it's much easier to
> have a known-correct value to use. Even if it's just for the sake of
> checking against.
Sure, I'm not suggesting we remove this from bitcoind (probably the only place
that makes initial adoption easier).
> >> [4]:
> >> https://github.com/theuni/ckpool/commit/7d84b1d76b39591cc1c1ef495ebec513
> >> cb 19a08e
> >
> > I'm pretty sure this commit is actually /introducing/ a bug in working
> > (albeit ugly) code. The height, while always positive, is serialised as
> > a signed number, so 0x80 needs to be two bytes: 80 00.
>
> You're right, thanks. The current code breaks on heights of (for ex)
> 16513. I'll fix up my changes to take the sign bit into account.
I'm curious what bug it was fixing? Was it overwriting data beyond the number?
Luke
|
