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 4CB37D60 for ; Mon, 18 Jun 2018 20:51:37 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from mail-ua0-f182.google.com (mail-ua0-f182.google.com [209.85.217.182]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5226D1A0 for ; Mon, 18 Jun 2018 20:51:35 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-ua0-f182.google.com with SMTP id x18-v6so11597982uaj.9 for ; Mon, 18 Jun 2018 13:51:35 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to; bh=xYfp9j3MumKiNoe6udqRSwyfF34oSjb2lCFaFQRnrlE=; b=GPAmn2WnWrMxeMQvgWsKfxfuShlbBmEkOISjaOyoAK9w0bBK9nO0Fwn6t8hCiGc6+k buZJXskMp6QAOp92CaAeuFOXNj8VSkMP2nxQMFHEgyV7qICPViJfOcvQqRDCpmaYh1IY 1TWm2OrapMCT3QgacdlWfXYcUaASRYrfLqmW95dnIGEW+86uimNHMCBXlXhbkAHQqjBj 9zvZ4h6aFl/M0VDbmD+yhUehwzmz6QtXbzNmM5kR+cW0oZWuiHq0UBy+CdeGqHuiPK+8 9WCEFVXMRtfBp+vj3/t0v+Y9s4jxkGezAZbIsdPkvxsGy5ikYMRaaA9hRDKLVlLzyEmu 6sRQ== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to; bh=xYfp9j3MumKiNoe6udqRSwyfF34oSjb2lCFaFQRnrlE=; b=seehVhTxhvnIXKjcZ3m76rdXj6uGDMOJOKOeOIVFsFU3qgyF3lFIdKiKMMRPh5YV/6 B04ZmRpTw5qx68tR/0hDrHdXquAnrI5/dYTBefj6szKe/Aod4uVfj7CtKeX5Xr3YSoHQ pTpwN3ey+y9BQryQ1Xieif5XnzWh9g0GsaD0YV2ueO2g4iH6oQuevNcsd4kseg21MmlM o7pdcK6XJaK6lI373GQ2sRfsk1y8eMl5TdGMZc+qmlU6KT4eKFVJ+duheid96N+rHAC8 qtDV12a72uZK+jezfWqTxhKGRlJEwjI0FN1jsF8YhnTMqDp5TQgECd6wGlOHw3o06SjC Kdmw== X-Gm-Message-State: APt69E1DoRTdFCy6+wpNsOPPSsRKJ33o4YPPsRLua1BaI3LtUCW641BT g/+xiPLtVWCfmFOtlseFEk3NSOfbCYwdYr2+ZDU= X-Google-Smtp-Source: ADUXVKJhaiAh1xgg0BNlQyZcof3WUBKK0p9xDZoLLM5DrEF7lZTmTgsgRYXMxClyI3bKWh0gVcB3sQaEXTFxhnKZSL0= X-Received: by 2002:ab0:30d:: with SMTP id 13-v6mr1370738uat.14.1529355094389; Mon, 18 Jun 2018 13:51:34 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 2002:ab0:2455:0:0:0:0:0 with HTTP; Mon, 18 Jun 2018 13:51:33 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: From: Bryan Bishop Date: Mon, 18 Jun 2018 15:51:33 -0500 Message-ID: To: Bram Cohen , Bitcoin Protocol Discussion , Bryan Bishop Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="00000000000022fa94056ef0bb61" X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.0 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID, DKIM_VALID_AU, FREEMAIL_FROM, HTML_MESSAGE, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE autolearn=ham version=3.3.1 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on smtp1.linux-foundation.org Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Miner dilution attack on Bitcoin - is that something plausible? X-BeenThere: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Bitcoin Protocol Discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 18 Jun 2018 20:51:37 -0000 --00000000000022fa94056ef0bb61 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" On Mon, Jun 18, 2018 at 3:40 PM, Bram Cohen via bitcoin-dev < bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote: > Not sure what you're saying here. The block rate can't be particularly > increased or decreased in the long run due to the work difficulty > adjustment getting you roughly back where you started no matter what. > Someone could DOS the system by producing empty blocks, sure, that's a > central attack of what can happen when someone does a 51% attack with no > special countermeasures other than everything that Bitcoin does at its > core. An attacker or group of attackers could conspire to reduce block > sizes in order to increase transaction fees, in fact they could do that > with a miner activated soft fork. That appears both doable and given past > things which have happened with transaction fees in the past potentially > lucrative, particularly as block rewards fall in the future. Please don't > tell the big mining pools about it. > Bram, actually I thought the previous discussions determined that less than 51% hashrate would be required for certain soft-hard-forks employing empty blocks? I don't have a specific reference: https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2016-February/012377.html https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2016-February/012457.html https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2016-December/013332.html - Bryan http://heybryan.org/ 1 512 203 0507 --00000000000022fa94056ef0bb61 Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
On Mon, Jun 18, 2018 at 3:40 PM, Bram Cohen via bitco= in-dev <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org><= /span> wrote:
Not sure what you're = saying here. The block rate can't be particularly increased or decrease= d in the long run due to the work difficulty adjustment getting you roughly= back where you started no matter what. Someone could DOS the system by pro= ducing empty blocks, sure, that's a central attack of what can happen w= hen someone does a 51% attack with no special countermeasures other than ev= erything that Bitcoin does at its core. An attacker or group of attackers c= ould conspire to reduce block sizes in order to increase transaction fees, = in fact they could do that with a miner activated soft fork. That appears b= oth doable and given past things which have happened with transaction fees = in the past potentially lucrative, particularly as block rewards fall in th= e future. Please don't tell the big mining pools about it.

Bram, actually = I thought the previous discussions determined that less than 51% hashrate w= ould be required for certain soft-hard-forks employing empty blocks?=

I don't have a specific reference:
=
- Bryan
http://heybr= yan.org/
1 512 203 0507
--00000000000022fa94056ef0bb61--