From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from fraxinus.osuosl.org (smtp4.osuosl.org [140.211.166.137]) by lists.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D4640C0051 for ; Thu, 8 Oct 2020 09:19:05 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by fraxinus.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id CC20B864AD for ; Thu, 8 Oct 2020 09:19:05 +0000 (UTC) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at osuosl.org Received: from fraxinus.osuosl.org ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (.osuosl.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id XHN9G6iabKOd for ; Thu, 8 Oct 2020 09:19:05 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: domain auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from mail-wm1-f54.google.com (mail-wm1-f54.google.com [209.85.128.54]) by fraxinus.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2227A86364 for ; Thu, 8 Oct 2020 09:19:04 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-wm1-f54.google.com with SMTP id v12so5749464wmh.3 for ; Thu, 08 Oct 2020 02:19:04 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=from:content-transfer-encoding:mime-version:subject:date:references :to:in-reply-to:message-id; bh=FQb6Sq0skHJiaEg5/Tf7xEgIbpXvEszoSKVnvRwr+XM=; b=W8irLN14omU6MNFgYBZcmDpZa9OSM2fI4IT477XaMu90GalJCSrjIMVdk4Bsis+9k5 lmwfYSVuzfinkNgEVPQ1Qw6VYHO1cMj8IJv0g7YviT+RzxAFcK1pUdv2fOYf1HlC6VKx hQjzRQEMEK3OP2JOhK5thlLxIbYuoYrBc8gVdKCEH3RU8ncIYBE5XFXjdneS48ccr6z1 n4jvBZECTS/UfjDicRIAPD4AsGCKzMtutw94LRIjKyOmb/Lve4j9EPe3JqdjttTgS2Dc 9dXzeFEzmn/Te3nhayvKGbDJKsGakuC4IsNmh/anIIYzhNG0VpeN0GpSDyL0G5eDsdFX TsKQ== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:from:content-transfer-encoding:mime-version :subject:date:references:to:in-reply-to:message-id; bh=FQb6Sq0skHJiaEg5/Tf7xEgIbpXvEszoSKVnvRwr+XM=; b=eMT0qBNKfJzZd2bwGzuGES0XabVlci8JCmGcp92TIiB4NYQ24uSPx5KNBMsAQTjOUe 5/6965NyyIUy8Sl1WxiHFI7wzPQGPP0jj3anIWcArt2t6j9Zkp+rrKxqiZbE/id0rnDK PTkEG1ycvwPGEL7DXjKmMTI0Xkcn3no5Z/tAjh41yK3ZRp9NBFSfQ3xyO+8wksaaIQNQ 6P80+9upnSd/9f+JIAFW3Gjz2OWLQKB1A6DEeLZfnPONI4AmJFKl4vcPiDqj5FLdmxzU NmPO6GiszWFKle8TQy4OLAGzFRnOwor+VMnwKb1PK22JhsHDsbCrv5x0r3N8cRcqClgG 6mtA== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM532ASxhVABIgpv/2+OlgVyWp4L6vYmlsO3bWkVwOOAvPOEdP/7YS P80WAIdM4+SAwgo5q2H5fJk= X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJz3WVtXH+tC3gwtiiJ9djzv9zsFSOukwDwKweiqt2DJSocR666o7E92EPOF8xTqMcBYPnjO+w== X-Received: by 2002:a7b:c085:: with SMTP id r5mr7554306wmh.17.1602148742306; Thu, 08 Oct 2020 02:19:02 -0700 (PDT) Received: from 2a01cb040bd3d400d8e9a23c1973887e.ipv6.abo.wanadoo.fr (2a01cb040bd3d400d8e9a23c1973887e.ipv6.abo.wanadoo.fr. [2a01:cb04:bd3:d400:d8e9:a23c:1973:887e]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id t4sm1461048wra.75.2020.10.08.02.19.00 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-ECDSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Thu, 08 Oct 2020 02:19:00 -0700 (PDT) From: =?utf-8?B?w5ZuZGVyIEfDvHJjYW4=?= Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 13.4 \(3608.120.23.2.4\)) Date: Thu, 8 Oct 2020 11:18:59 +0200 References: To: ZmnSCPxj , Bitcoin Developers List In-Reply-To: Message-Id: <572BB236-5E4F-4DFC-AB16-2B22906B58CD@gmail.com> X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3608.120.23.2.4) X-Mailman-Approved-At: Thu, 08 Oct 2020 09:21:21 +0000 Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Progress on Miner Withholding - FPNC X-BeenThere: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: Bitcoin Protocol Discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 08 Oct 2020 09:19:05 -0000 Hello all, By the way, is this FPNC is similar to the way the current (or recent) = code of Ethereum that is selecting branches based on the difficulty of = the crypto puzzles solved to obtain the blocks of this branch without = comparing the sizes of the subtrees? Any ideas? Best, =C3=96nder > On 8 Oct 2020, at 03:39, ZmnSCPxj via bitcoin-dev = wrote: >=20 > Good morning all, >=20 >>=20 >> Below is a novel discussion on block-withholding attacks and FPNC. = These are two very simple changes being proposed here that will = dramatically impact the network for the better. >>=20 >> But first of all, I'd like to say that the idea for FPNC came out of = a conversation with ZmnSCPxj's in regards to re-org stability. When I = had proposed blockchain pointers with the PubRef opcode, he took the = time to explain to me concerns around re-orgs and why it is a bigger = problem than I initially had thought =E2=80=94 and I greatly appreciate = this detail. After touching base with ZmnSCPxj and Greg Maxwell there = is an overwhelming view that the current problems that face the network = outweigh any theoretical ones. >>=20 >> Currently the elephant in the room is the miner withholding attack. = There is an unintended incentive to hold onto blocks because keeping = knowledge of this coinbase private gives a greedy miner more time to = calculate the next block. Major mining pools are actively employing = this strategy because winning two blocks in a row has a much greater = payoff than common robbery. This unfair advantage happens each time a = new block is found, and provides a kind of home-field advantage for = large pools, and contributes to a more centralized network. This odd = feature of the bitcoin protocol provides a material incentive to delay = transactions and encourages the formation of disagreements. In a sense, = withholding is a deception of the computational power of a miner, and by = extension a deception of their influence within the electorate. In = effect, other miners are forced to work harder, and when they are = successful in finding a 2nd solution of the same height =E2=80=94 no one = benefits. Disagreement on the bitcoin network is not good for the = environment, or for the users, or for honest miners, but is ideal for = dishonest miners looking for an advantage. >=20 > This is my understanding: >=20 > The selfish mining attack described above was already presented and = known about **many years** ago, with the solution presented here: = https://www.cs.cornell.edu/~ie53/publications/btcProcFC.pdf >=20 > The solution was later determined to actually raise the needed = threshhold to 33%, not 25% in the paper. >=20 > That solution is what is used in the network today. >=20 > Implementing floating-point Nakamoto Consensus removes the solution = presented in the paper, and therefore risks reintroducing the selfish = mining attack. >=20 > Therefore, floating-point Nakamoto Consensus is a hard NAK. >=20 >=20 > Regards, > ZmnSCPxj >=20 > _______________________________________________ > bitcoin-dev mailing list > bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org > https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev