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
|
Return-Path: <jtimon@jtimon.cc>
Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org
[172.17.192.35])
by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A6595107A
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Sat, 26 Dec 2015 15:33:55 +0000 (UTC)
X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6
Received: from mail-vk0-f50.google.com (mail-vk0-f50.google.com
[209.85.213.50])
by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 79481EC
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Sat, 26 Dec 2015 15:33:54 +0000 (UTC)
Received: by mail-vk0-f50.google.com with SMTP id k1so37442928vkb.2
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Sat, 26 Dec 2015 07:33:54 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
d=jtimon-cc.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623;
h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to
:cc:content-type;
bh=RsVF2IBWqAUf4fjGlipjWr9FUDzl1bbt+hglz6MPIYM=;
b=ekmUEipDyjjkyAWmFJtJoU8IBcyX758DhCGA3mCcgWd+iK63gQE/6NbOpKAXQGvO6N
/X+92Gb/D0wttvXuVgBHm2umXFJb7nhtczEefULcW7xlJq5kJcFBld7DXbFZw6YW1YpC
8oXm+WAWitXsQR1L+DHBe4AGl0G0oqP0h7hMJvGpzWhH/NxNgvFCgJi2A/kq+6v3C43F
LcDXdB6aTzQec+W3QejEhbva0KlLW1bsv6lcPFJTEF814yLIsVv4ZSyD1B86lZ08yz9U
PJJOKJtTH1XtjsS3l1XT1EWa8QNzkZVuipU/tFhi+q82uIF0535mowEp4MLRWOIBpM+V
Cljw==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
d=1e100.net; s=20130820;
h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date
:message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type;
bh=RsVF2IBWqAUf4fjGlipjWr9FUDzl1bbt+hglz6MPIYM=;
b=KuwjhxN33aKVQFf/eC8aYpo7SSZp5o/AO7DKIkscmVWhA6Q+kCYR272mjVMOv8KCB2
OiaQ5OUkXRSVmJHvZO4mLOVhexg3x1h6I45yKN3qD6iUpp9Wdo66UySZlyJTLh5liQ+r
xRi+gRlU9MGS7a04UafpZ76xs7w9Nwb8/FG2Vywa/ahQjHFgwvNbR6MnHQHgWBq+TTcu
1c05gRPrdR4lTmTzXzT91linQoftyqp6iZtQc7OkLmLaGLDBQgnY8zw6scUw1hYUhJDO
z8xeDMZ5XFtq/mDIdaLgB7tmj84mtY+mFQ0UNNAwoJXlWKpjhOki0u+KyfmNkhPj6GPQ
nAXw==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQlTGu1c74ZMqY6LEMTYOkvW4jbRnnpOuZVCPQEU4eB4gNziICpIBYojwwMJrLcYAJRvIrBsruOBXNKckAGCSnDKV2BTSg==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.31.34.213 with SMTP id i204mr29241248vki.2.1451144033553;
Sat, 26 Dec 2015 07:33:53 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.31.141.73 with HTTP; Sat, 26 Dec 2015 07:33:53 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.31.141.73 with HTTP; Sat, 26 Dec 2015 07:33:53 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <ema8a70574-c28e-4c43-a1e3-5f2f4df7d3a2@platinum>
References: <20151220132842.GA25481@muck>
<ema8a70574-c28e-4c43-a1e3-5f2f4df7d3a2@platinum>
Date: Sat, 26 Dec 2015 16:33:53 +0100
Message-ID: <CABm2gDp4ac=E+T-FT=ZQPnW_ao2GdF1QOg8tROYoV=QKypQS1g@mail.gmail.com>
From: =?UTF-8?B?Sm9yZ2UgVGltw7Nu?= <jtimon@jtimon.cc>
To: Eric Lombrozo <elombrozo@gmail.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a113dcb1ea3621b0527cecc6f
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED,
DKIM_VALID,HTML_MESSAGE,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW autolearn=ham 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>, nbvfour@gmail.com
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] We need to fix the block withholding attack
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: Sat, 26 Dec 2015 15:33:55 -0000
--001a113dcb1ea3621b0527cecc6f
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
On Dec 26, 2015 9:24 AM, "Eric Lombrozo via bitcoin-dev" <
bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
> Unfortunately, this also means longer confirmation times, lower
throughput, and lower miner revenue. Note, however, that confirmations
would (on average) represent more PoW, so fewer confirmations would be
required to achieve the same level of security.
>
I'm not sure I understand this. If mining revenue per unit of time drops,
total pow per unit of time should also drop. Even if the inter-block time
is increased, it's not clear to me that the pow per block would necessarily
be higher.
What am I missing?
--001a113dcb1ea3621b0527cecc6f
Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
<p dir=3D"ltr"><br>
On Dec 26, 2015 9:24 AM, "Eric Lombrozo via bitcoin-dev" <<a h=
ref=3D"mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org">bitcoin-dev@lists.linu=
xfoundation.org</a>> wrote:<br>
=C2=A0<br>
> Unfortunately, this also means longer confirmation times, lower throug=
hput, and lower miner revenue. Note, however, that confirmations would (on =
average) represent more PoW, so fewer confirmations would be required to ac=
hieve the same level of security.<br>
> =C2=A0</p>
<p dir=3D"ltr">I'm not sure I understand this. If mining revenue per un=
it of time drops, total pow per unit of time should also drop. Even if the =
inter-block time is increased, it's not clear to me that the pow per bl=
ock would necessarily be higher.<br>
What am I missing?<br>
</p>
--001a113dcb1ea3621b0527cecc6f--
|
