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
|
Received: from sog-mx-4.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.194]
helo=mx.sourceforge.net)
by sfs-ml-1.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76)
(envelope-from <jouke@bitonic.nl>) id 1VeBq9-0003VN-7P
for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Wed, 06 Nov 2013 22:44:45 +0000
X-ACL-Warn:
Received: from entix.nl ([178.22.57.40] helo=mail.entix.nl)
by sog-mx-4.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76)
id 1VeBq7-0001IS-3W for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Wed, 06 Nov 2013 22:44:45 +0000
Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1])
by mail.entix.nl (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0D5AD308CDF
for <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>;
Wed, 6 Nov 2013 23:19:45 +0100 (CET)
Received: from mail.entix.nl ([127.0.0.1])
by localhost (entix.nl [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024)
with ESMTP id OcQAC3QVtMUH
for <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>;
Wed, 6 Nov 2013 23:19:43 +0100 (CET)
Received: from [192.168.1.106] (535608E7.cm-6-7a.dynamic.ziggo.nl
[83.86.8.231]) by mail.entix.nl (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 4A5A3308CD7
for <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>;
Wed, 6 Nov 2013 23:19:43 +0100 (CET)
Message-ID: <527AC07E.5030401@bitonic.nl>
Date: Wed, 06 Nov 2013 23:19:42 +0100
From: Jouke Hofman <jouke@bitonic.nl>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64;
rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net
References: <5279D49D.5050807@jerviss.org>
In-Reply-To: <5279D49D.5050807@jerviss.org>
X-Enigmail-Version: 1.5.2
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Spam-Report: Spam Filtering performed by mx.sourceforge.net.
See http://spamassassin.org/tag/ for more details.
0.0 URIBL_BLOCKED ADMINISTRATOR NOTICE: The query to URIBL was blocked.
See
http://wiki.apache.org/spamassassin/DnsBlocklists#dnsbl-block
for more information. [URIs: doubleclick.net]
X-Headers-End: 1VeBq7-0001IS-3W
Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] we can all relax now
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 22:44:45 -0000
bounty++
On 06-11-13 06:33, kjj wrote:
> One of the things that really gets me going is when someone devises a
> model, tests it against itself, and then pretends that they've learned
> something about the real world.
>
> Naturally, the Selfish Mining paper is exactly this sort of nonsense.
> Their model is one with no latency, and one where the attacker has total
> visibility across the network. An iterated FSM is not a suitable
> simulation of the bitcoin system. The bitcoin network does not have
> states, and to the extent that you can pretend that we do, you can't
> simulate transitions between them with static probabilities.
>
> The authors understand this deep down inside, even though they didn't
> work out the implications. They handwave the issue by assuming a total
> sybil attack, and in true academic spirit, they don't realize that the
> condition necessary for the attack is far, far worse than the attack itself.
>
> Greg said he'd like to run some simulations, and I'm thinking about it
> too. Unfortunately, he is busy all week, and I'm lazy (and also busy
> for most of tomorrow).
>
> If neither of us get to it first, I'm willing to pitch in 1 BTC as a
> bounty for building a general bitcoin network simulator framework. The
> simulator should be able to account for latency between nodes, and
> ideally within a node. It needs to be able to simulate an attacker that
> owns varying fractions of the network, and make decisions based only on
> what the attacker actually knows. It needs to be able to simulate this
> "attack" and should be generic enough to be easily modified for other
> crazy schemes.
>
> (Bounty offer is serious, but expires in one year [based on the earliest
> timestamp that my mail server puts on this email], and /may/ be subject
> to change if the price on any reputable exchange breaks 1000 USD per BTC
> in that period.)
>
> Basically, the lack of a decent network simulator is what allowed this
> paper to get press. If the author had been able to see the importance
> of the stuff he was ignoring, we wouldn't be wasting so much time
> correcting him (and sadly the reporters that have no way to check his
> claims).
>
> https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=324413.msg3495663#msg3495663
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> November Webinars for C, C++, Fortran Developers
> Accelerate application performance with scalable programming models. Explore
> techniques for threading, error checking, porting, and tuning. Get the most
> from the latest Intel processors and coprocessors. See abstracts and register
> http://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/clk?id=60136231&iu=/4140/ostg.clktrk
> _______________________________________________
> Bitcoin-development mailing list
> Bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development
>
|
