public inbox for bitcoindev@googlegroups.com
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Peter Todd <pete@petertodd.org>
To: Gregory Maxwell <greg@xiph.org>,
	Bitcoin Protocol Discussion
	<bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Fwd:  "Compressed" headers stream
Date: Mon, 4 Sep 2017 10:06:44 -0400	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20170904140644.GF1276@fedora-23-dvm> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAAS2fgRvSZm-NVLU++0WmWoaYbpX1R0Fqmv_Jf7a_RsqzXfOog@mail.gmail.com>

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1643 bytes --]

On Mon, Aug 28, 2017 at 05:12:15PM +0000, Gregory Maxwell via bitcoin-dev wrote:
> You are leaving a lot of bytes on the table.
> 
> The bits field can only change every 2016 blocks (4 bytes per header),
> the timestamp can not be less than the median of the last 11 and is
> usually only a small amount over the last one (saves 2 bytes per
> header), the block version is usually one of the last few (save 3
> bytes per header).
> 
> But all these things improvements are just a constant factor. I think
> you want the compact SPV proofs described in the appendix of the
> sidechains whitepaper which creates log scaling proofs.

Note that I'm already planning on OpenTimestamps having infrastructure for
trusted validity attestations; log scaling proofs alone only prove total work,
not validity. Timestamping has all kinds of very dubious security properties
when done via proof-of-work, due to various ways that miners can get away with
inaccurate block times. In particular, setting a block time backwards is
something that miners can do, particularly with majority hashing power, which
is the exact thing we're trying to prevent in a timestamp proof.

This all makes me dubious about risking further weakening of this already weak
security with compact SPV proofs; we'd need a lot more analysis to understand
what we're risking. Also note that we can ship a known-good
sum-merkle-tree tip hash with the software, which further reduces initial
download bandwidth needed to get the block headers on top of this obviously
safe eliding of redundant hashes.

-- 
https://petertodd.org 'peter'[:-1]@petertodd.org

[-- Attachment #2: Digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 455 bytes --]

      parent reply	other threads:[~2017-09-04 18:42 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 8+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2017-08-28 15:50 [bitcoin-dev] "Compressed" headers stream Riccardo Casatta
2017-08-28 16:13 ` Greg Sanders
2017-08-28 16:25   ` Riccardo Casatta
2017-08-28 16:26     ` Greg Sanders
2017-09-04 14:10       ` Peter Todd
     [not found] ` <CAAS2fgS3uG=4vgFuObPKA_5MstoGm4AabO=60fhV3EU_0dvejg@mail.gmail.com>
2017-08-28 17:12   ` [bitcoin-dev] Fwd: " Gregory Maxwell
2017-08-28 17:54     ` Kalle Rosenbaum
2017-09-04 14:06     ` Peter Todd [this message]

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=20170904140644.GF1276@fedora-23-dvm \
    --to=pete@petertodd.org \
    --cc=bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org \
    --cc=greg@xiph.org \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox