From: Gavin Andresen <gavinandresen@gmail.com>
To: kjj <kjj@jerviss.org>
Cc: bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net
Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] Difficulty adjustment / time issues
Date: Wed, 14 Sep 2011 10:45:36 -0400 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <CABsx9T0JvnOaBy+irHtnN1zMWP8FiDTn=kn-01ky+V2MW1suTg@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <4E6F83C3.9020108@jerviss.org>
> But that doesn't solve the whole problem, because the block timestamp
> checking is based on the assumption that the node is looking at the bitcoin
> clock rather than the, ahem, real clock. If we change the idea of network
> time to NTP, we will then need to write (and test!) new block timestamp
> rules to account for the new assumptions.
Why?
The block timestamp rules currently give HOURS of wiggle-room for
timestamps. We can't change those rules without risking a chain split.
Here's a thumbnail sketch of what I'm thinking:
When new tip-of-chain blocks are received, IF their timestamp is
unreasonable with respect to system time and the previous block's
timestamp, then add them to a 'discouraged' list. (but follow the
current rules for outright rejecting blocks based on timestamps too
far in the future or past)
Modify the getwork code to build on the second-from-tip block if the
first-on-tip block is on the discouraged list.
Assuming a majority of pools/miners adopt the "discourage blocks with
stale timestamps" rule, that should squash any incentive for cartels
to try to start playing with difficulty-- you would have to have 50+%
power to start, or you risk producing mostly orphan blocks.
> Also, this is going to cause problems for at least one pool operator.
I'll trade more security for "make at least one pool operator have to
do some work" any day.
--
--
Gavin Andresen
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2011-09-14 14:45 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 19+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2011-09-13 15:06 [Bitcoin-development] Difficulty adjustment / time issues Gavin Andresen
2011-09-13 15:15 ` Vladimir Marchenko
2011-09-13 15:54 ` John Smith
2011-09-13 16:24 ` kjj
2011-09-14 14:45 ` Gavin Andresen [this message]
2011-09-14 15:43 ` Luke-Jr
2011-09-14 16:06 ` Christian Decker
2011-09-14 19:52 ` Aidan Thornton
2011-09-14 20:09 ` Gregory Maxwell
2011-09-14 20:28 ` Gavin Andresen
2011-09-14 21:36 ` Alex Waters
2011-09-14 21:51 ` Gregory Maxwell
2011-09-14 22:07 ` theymos
2011-09-14 23:01 ` Luke-Jr
2011-09-13 16:48 ` Luke-Jr
2011-09-14 21:45 ` theymos
2011-11-07 15:02 ` Pieter Wuille
2011-11-07 15:27 ` Luke-Jr
2011-11-07 15:43 ` Pieter Wuille
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='CABsx9T0JvnOaBy+irHtnN1zMWP8FiDTn=kn-01ky+V2MW1suTg@mail.gmail.com' \
--to=gavinandresen@gmail.com \
--cc=bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net \
--cc=kjj@jerviss.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