From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org [172.17.192.35]) by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5A8001177 for ; Sun, 27 Dec 2015 04:10:31 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from outpost.bitwarp.com (outpost.bitwarp.com [144.76.39.233]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8C372A7 for ; Sun, 27 Dec 2015 04:10:30 +0000 (UTC) To: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org References: <20151219184240.GB12893@muck> <4882BD35-D890-4860-9222-5C23AEB6AE89@mattcorallo.com> <20151220044450.GA23942@muck> From: Geir Harald Hansen X-Enigmail-Draft-Status: N1110 Message-ID: <567F64A1.8020202@bitminter.com> Date: Sun, 27 Dec 2015 05:10:09 +0100 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.5.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=ham version=3.3.1 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on smtp1.linux-foundation.org X-Mailman-Approved-At: Sun, 27 Dec 2015 04:23:32 +0000 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 List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 27 Dec 2015 04:10:31 -0000 Last I heard it was believed the miner had made their own mining client and that the block withholding was a bug, not an intended feature. On 26.12.2015 09:12, Multipool Admin via bitcoin-dev wrote: > Any attempt to 'fix' this problem, would most likely require changes to > all mining software, why not just make mining more decentralized in general? > > For example, allow anyone to submit proofs of work to Bitcoind that are > some fraction of the network difficulty and receive payment for them if > they're valid. This would also encourage the proliferation of full > nodes since anyone could solo mine again. Then, the next coinbase > transaction could be split among, say, the top 100 proofs of work. > > Eligius already does their miner payouts like this. > > If you want to fix an issue with mining, fix the selfish mining issue > first as it's a much larger and more dangerous potential issue. > > I don't believe it was ever clearly established whether Eligius suffered > a block withholding attack or was just the victim of a miner with (what > was, at the time) a large amount of faulty hardware, however, from the > Bitcointalk threads at the time I believe it was assumed to be the latter. > > --Adam > > > On Sat, Dec 19, 2015 at 8:44 PM, Peter Todd via bitcoin-dev > > wrote: > > On Sat, Dec 19, 2015 at 07:43:59PM -0800, Chris Priest via > bitcoin-dev wrote: > > Then shouldn't this be something the pool deals with, not the bitcoin protocol? > > There is no known way for pools - especially ones that allow anonymous > hashers - to effectively prevent block withholding attacks without > changing the Bitcoin protocol. > > -- > 'peter'[:-1]@petertodd.org > 00000000000000000188b6321da7feae60d74c7b0becbdab3b1a0bd57f10947d > > _______________________________________________ > bitcoin-dev mailing list > bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org > > https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev > > > > > _______________________________________________ > bitcoin-dev mailing list > bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org > https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev >