path: root/b7/2f90ff93ec6b3facc781bc59980a967536eb8e

Return-Path: <truthcoin@gmail.com>
Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org
	[172.17.192.35])
	by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 424C9CBC
	for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
	Tue,  5 Dec 2017 18:05:44 +0000 (UTC)
X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6
Received: from mail-qt0-f169.google.com (mail-qt0-f169.google.com
	[209.85.216.169])
	by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 46E3F463
	for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
	Tue,  5 Dec 2017 18:05:42 +0000 (UTC)
Received: by mail-qt0-f169.google.com with SMTP id u42so2856030qte.7
	for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
	Tue, 05 Dec 2017 10:05:42 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025;
	h=subject:to:references:from:message-id:date:user-agent:mime-version
	:in-reply-to:content-language;
	bh=nm8RUPV03kpDdmIZWzBsf4cocy/WOOjdRVTdwFJEcAE=;
	b=pVdAnYiUejk/t+lVFIv3qW/JBxobANWbXOUlBDw7LVBEV99d+Zwkk0IwRHaB+E2d2Y
	O6HQDpc5pRLuWzXQ4TM1pwvTYgrG8Bgyl1E2OKwCbrd3se23LErU22Z4xEw2HtxvBF43
	w82ZSTR1HZhR0UhKjEiV/cC1tm0TNv/PfidLUQ9nWoQeCL89jFiCA2j+H5nGY1pgBoRt
	J/NC4o9NeRu3YQsoXESJUy+rVrSa4wmMT9HlgMgN9RfF1GEwPWHXKgThv1ayUg1Ge1iv
	TXErPWZcLRmizFDI02jMCKLflXOlMZj3dmK80RVGvc2DPQkymv7B1b/vo/MuEOiU2Fub
	Sh0A==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
	d=1e100.net; s=20161025;
	h=x-gm-message-state:subject:to:references:from:message-id:date
	:user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to:content-language;
	bh=nm8RUPV03kpDdmIZWzBsf4cocy/WOOjdRVTdwFJEcAE=;
	b=g31fuZdD0jtzcD0DgCdAbWMnhlWWNDVvYMt0lScqPGiWGHzO631cCSp1+JzaAxI5PK
	BpMatP5SKa9lxMINnPPm5U5Nrk2BbkKWpRwEcRqDBggO9OWUmYvB4Uz+Q+ruks3IvbLk
	U4ztlHrWU2IT3j1EAHr+sQ6IeEZ+yi9S8BVSaIQp3+KHKlhGdmqZklEqPCLJLWivEWA8
	KZh/3AAh/jPZC6jkSUncvinW/eYBCcC5mIVA3/JsgKGtnzdZJxHwW0LrPPT3BmVuZkEk
	Ox9TsvGtcMuhHyjYWU5778PavRn2HzopbOzE1pMq7hrf2h3kwQLobuoveFdxpAvp2FQt
	a12Q==
X-Gm-Message-State: AKGB3mJgy3DV35hCSBniHhtl+/uBnveMNbfXTTJZwe7wVDPrVSMWFfJf
	FCWqVVsUjVuNRWKPBWhJVy9iJQ==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AGs4zMYAhVAk79AHyt5I7DaMzic/MeMf/t3wFC4Hu9clz20KuzvNCQeESsfZo2ZxILpTdS965F6XSQ==
X-Received: by 10.55.127.193 with SMTP id a184mr23588005qkd.119.1512497140838; 
	Tue, 05 Dec 2017 10:05:40 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [192.168.1.104] (ool-45726efb.dyn.optonline.net.
	[69.114.110.251]) by smtp.googlemail.com with ESMTPSA id
	3sm427912qty.47.2017.12.05.10.05.38
	for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
	(version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128);
	Tue, 05 Dec 2017 10:05:39 -0800 (PST)
To: Bitcoin Protocol Discussion <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
References: <d3497397-33c3-90c1-1be8-a733736eac0b@gmail.com>
	<1bb6cccd-3f6d-d62a-2825-4e6f46a4b525@mattcorallo.com>
	<dd2781a6-3e10-9f0c-6ee0-a2c070b7cf67@gmail.com>
	<CAB+qUq4wNv=-ZSibUvVCwYSE7Qw8xe8EH91KG6znUp1d7X=mdA@mail.gmail.com>
From: Paul Sztorc <truthcoin@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <c898cc1c-d71c-de5c-aede-a2a4235656e0@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 5 Dec 2017 13:05:39 -0500
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101
	Thunderbird/52.5.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CAB+qUq4wNv=-ZSibUvVCwYSE7Qw8xe8EH91KG6znUp1d7X=mdA@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
	boundary="------------E43802461C5ACF90FE26027F"
Content-Language: en-US
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.0 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED,
	DKIM_VALID, DKIM_VALID_AU, FREEMAIL_FROM, 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
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Two Drivechain BIPs
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, 05 Dec 2017 18:05:44 -0000

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
--------------E43802461C5ACF90FE26027F
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit

Hello Chris,

1. Marginal Cost

There actually is a very small cost to casting a malicious vote,
relative to an honest vote. This is because the software (when run
as-is), will automatically vote correctly. But to vote fraudulently you
must decide on what to do instead, and configure that! This might not be
as easy as it seems (see collective action part, below).

It is true that there is no *marginal* cost to creating a bad vote, in
the fraudulent withdrawal case. But then again there is no marginal cost
to creating a good vote either -- in fact there is no cost at all. In
fact, there is no marginal cost to creating a bad block either, in the
51% hashrate reorganization case. Epistemologically, the protocol has no
way of differentiating a "bad" block/vote from a good one. So one cannot
"cost" more than the other, in a narrow sense.

I suppose in the reorganization case there is the risk of lost mining
effort on a chain that actually does *not* have 51% and therefore won't
catch up. But this only encourages conformity to the longest chain,
including fraudulent chains. For example, imagine that the
reorganization is done via secretly mining a longer chain -- once that
chain is published, it will be the longest. Then, according to your
framework, there will be a "marginal cost" to doing the *right* thing
(trying to preserve the honest, transparent chain). So I'm afraid I
don't understand what you mean.

2. Repercussions

As for there being no repercussions, that is incorrect. The miner's
choice to engage in a fraudulent withdraw is one that has several
negative consequences. They take a variety of forms and likelihoods, but
they definitely exist and are very relevant.

The first repercussion is the loss of victim-sidechain future tx-fees. A
second is the loss of all future tx fees on all sidechains. A third is
that the Bitcoin super-network is changed from being a "sidechain
enabled" network to a "sidechain disabled" network.

The impact of these repercussions is still unclear and open to
interpretation. On one hand, the impact may be small and therefore not
very persuasive (as in the case where a sidechain has few tx-fees, few
sidechains are used, few are expected to be created/used, and so little
is lost by attacking). On the other hand, a single fraudulent withdrawal
might motivate the creation of a new spinoff network that is exactly the
same as the old network, but with merely two changes: the fraudulent
withdrawal surgically removed (as if it were never attempted) AND a new
proof of work algorithm. Since the withdrawals are so slow, there would
be plenty of time to organize such an option (and people who already
want a pow-change would jump at this glaring opportunity). Will the
repercussions be small or large? Even if there is only a *risk* of large
repercussions, it can be very persuasive. (Just as the IRS is very
persuasive to tax-paying Americans, even though only a tiny proportion
of tax returns are audited.)

0. Useless Sidechain Fallacy

Finally, you are joining the long list of people who are committing the
"useless sidechain fallacy". You are saying that because you believe the
sidechain is useless, therefore everyone must believe as you do, and
therefore the option to use a sidechain must be one that has zero value.
However, in the real world people are heterogeneous. They may decide
that your interpretation contains errors, or else their circumstances
might incline them towards a different risk-reward tradeoff. Finally,
this fallacy obfuscates the main benefit of sidechains, which is that
they are optional -- the sidechain-designer must convince users to
deposit funds there.

3. Collective Action Problem

There actually is a collective action problem inherent to fraudulent
withdrawals.

If miners wish to fraudulently withdraw from the sidechain, they need to
choose the destination addresses (on mainchain Bitcoin Core) months in
advance. Then they need to upvote/downvote this destination, despite
that fact that --during this time-- new hashpower might be coming
online/offline, and/or hashers might be joining/leaving specific pools.
I bring this up to demonstrate that even the most straightforward attack
(of "a 51% hashrate group attacks a sidechain and distributes the
proceeds to the group proportional to hashpower") is actually one that
contains a difficult (and potentially interminable) negotiation. The
effort required to initiate the negotiation is the source of the
collective action problem here.

I think that this collective action problem is actually more burdensome
than Bitcoin's -- for mainchain Bitcoin miners merely need to decide
which block height they intend to reorganize from.

You may wish to read Drivechain's security model to learn more:
http://www.truthcoin.info/blog/drivechain/#drivechains-security

In this case, I don't see a way to measure "security" cardinally or
ordinally. Instead, I am only able to see it as either "secure enough"
or "not secure enough". But perhaps someone can enlighten me as to the
math they are using to produce these cardinal/ordinal rankings.

--Paul

On 12/4/2017 2:36 PM, Chris Pacia wrote:
>
>     I think you are missing a few things.
>
>     First of all, I think the security model for sidechains is the same as
>     that of every blockchain
>
>     People will say things, like "but with sidechains 51% hashrate can
>     steal
>     your coins!", but as I have repeated many times, this is also true of
>     mainchain btc-tx.  is something else?
>
>
> There are substantial opportunity costs as well as a collective action
> problem when it comes to re-writing the mainchain. 
>
> Is there anything similar for drivechains? As far as I can tell there
> is no opportunity cost to casting a malicious vote, no repercussions,
> and no collective action barrier that needs to be overcome. 
>
> Unless I'm missing something I wouldn't liken the security of a
> drivechain to that of the mainchain.



--------------E43802461C5ACF90FE26027F
Content-Type: text/html; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit

<html>
  <head>
    <meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
  </head>
  <body text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
    <div class="moz-cite-prefix">Hello Chris,<br>
      <br>
      1. Marginal Cost<br>
      <br>
      There actually is a very small cost to casting a malicious vote,
      relative to an honest vote. This is because the software (when run
      as-is), will automatically vote correctly. But to vote
      fraudulently you must decide on what to do instead, and configure
      that! This might not be as easy as it seems (see collective action
      part, below).<br>
      <br>
      It is true that there is no *marginal* cost to creating a bad
      vote, in the fraudulent withdrawal case. But then again there is
      no marginal cost to creating a good vote either -- in fact there
      is no cost at all. In fact, there is no marginal cost to creating
      a bad block either, in the 51% hashrate reorganization case.
      Epistemologically, the protocol has no way of differentiating a
      "bad" block/vote from a good one. So one cannot "cost" more than
      the other, in a narrow sense.<br>
      <br>
      I suppose in the reorganization case there is the risk of lost
      mining effort on a chain that actually does *not* have 51% and
      therefore won't catch up. But this only encourages conformity to
      the longest chain, including fraudulent chains. For example,
      imagine that the reorganization is done via secretly mining a
      longer chain -- once that chain is published, it will be the
      longest. Then, according to your framework, there will be a
      "marginal cost" to doing the *right* thing (trying to preserve the
      honest, transparent chain). So I'm afraid I don't understand what
      you mean.<br>
      <br>
      2. Repercussions<br>
      <br>
      As for there being no repercussions, that is incorrect. The
      miner's choice to engage in a fraudulent withdraw is one that has
      several negative consequences. They take a variety of forms and
      likelihoods, but they definitely exist and are very relevant.<br>
      <br>
      The first repercussion is the loss of victim-sidechain future
      tx-fees. A second is the loss of all future tx fees on all
      sidechains. A third is that the Bitcoin super-network is changed
      from being a "sidechain enabled" network to a "sidechain disabled"
      network.<br>
      <br>
      The impact of these repercussions is still unclear and open to
      interpretation. On one hand, the impact may be small and therefore
      not very persuasive (as in the case where a sidechain has few
      tx-fees, few sidechains are used, few are expected to be
      created/used, and so little is lost by attacking). On the other
      hand, a single fraudulent withdrawal might motivate the creation
      of a new spinoff network that is exactly the same as the old
      network, but with merely two changes: the fraudulent withdrawal
      surgically removed (as if it were never attempted) AND a new proof
      of work algorithm. Since the withdrawals are so slow, there would
      be plenty of time to organize such an option (and people who
      already want a pow-change would jump at this glaring opportunity).
      Will the repercussions be small or large? Even if there is only a
      *risk* of large repercussions, it can be very persuasive. (Just as
      the IRS is very persuasive to tax-paying Americans, even though
      only a tiny proportion of tax returns are audited.)<br>
      <br>
      0. Useless Sidechain Fallacy<br>
      <br>
      Finally, you are joining the long list of people who are
      committing the "useless sidechain fallacy". You are saying that
      because you believe the sidechain is useless, therefore everyone
      must believe as you do, and therefore the option to use a
      sidechain must be one that has zero value. However, in the real
      world people are heterogeneous. They may decide that your
      interpretation contains errors, or else their circumstances might
      incline them towards a different risk-reward tradeoff. Finally,
      this fallacy obfuscates the main benefit of sidechains, which is
      that they are optional -- the sidechain-designer must convince
      users to deposit funds there.<br>
      <br>
      3. Collective Action Problem<br>
      <br>
      There actually is a collective action problem inherent to
      fraudulent withdrawals.<br>
      <br>
      If miners wish to fraudulently withdraw from the sidechain, they
      need to choose the destination addresses (on mainchain Bitcoin
      Core) months in advance. Then they need to upvote/downvote this
      destination, despite that fact that --during this time-- new
      hashpower might be coming online/offline, and/or hashers might be
      joining/leaving specific pools. I bring this up to demonstrate
      that even the most straightforward attack (of "a 51% hashrate
      group attacks a sidechain and distributes the proceeds to the
      group proportional to hashpower") is actually one that contains a
      difficult (and potentially interminable) negotiation. The effort
      required to initiate the negotiation is the source of the
      collective action problem here.<br>
      <br>
      I think that this collective action problem is actually more
      burdensome than Bitcoin's -- for mainchain Bitcoin miners merely
      need to decide which block height they intend to reorganize from.<br>
      <br>
      You may wish to read Drivechain's security model to learn more:
      <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://www.truthcoin.info/blog/drivechain/#drivechains-security">http://www.truthcoin.info/blog/drivechain/#drivechains-security</a><br>
      <br>
      In this case, I don't see a way to measure "security" cardinally
      or ordinally. Instead, I am only able to see it as either "secure
      enough" or "not secure enough". But perhaps someone can enlighten
      me as to the math they are using to produce these cardinal/ordinal
      rankings.<br>
      <br>
      --Paul<br>
      <br>
      On 12/4/2017 2:36 PM, Chris Pacia wrote:<br>
    </div>
    <blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:CAB+qUq4wNv=-ZSibUvVCwYSE7Qw8xe8EH91KG6znUp1d7X=mdA@mail.gmail.com">
      <div dir="auto">
        <div><br>
          <div class="gmail_extra">
            <div class="gmail_quote">
              <blockquote class="quote" style="margin:0 0 0
                .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
                <div class="quoted-text">I think you are missing a few
                  things.<br>
                </div>
                <br>
                First of all, I think the security model for sidechains
                is the same as<br>
                that of every blockchain<br>
                <br>
                People will say things, like "but with sidechains 51%
                hashrate can steal<br>
                your coins!", but as I have repeated many times, this is
                also true of<br>
                mainchain btc-tx.  is something else?<br>
              </blockquote>
            </div>
          </div>
        </div>
        <div dir="auto"><br>
        </div>
        <div dir="auto">There are substantial opportunity costs as well
          as a collective action problem when it comes to re-writing the
          mainchain. </div>
        <div dir="auto"><br>
        </div>
        <div dir="auto">Is there anything similar for drivechains? As
          far as I can tell there is no opportunity cost to casting a
          malicious vote, no repercussions, and no collective action
          barrier that needs to be overcome. </div>
        <div dir="auto"><br>
        </div>
        <div dir="auto">Unless I'm missing something I wouldn't liken
          the security of a drivechain to that of the mainchain.</div>
      </div>
    </blockquote>
    <p><br>
    </p>
  </body>
</html>

--------------E43802461C5ACF90FE26027F--