From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from silver.osuosl.org (smtp3.osuosl.org [140.211.166.136]) by lists.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8D4C5C0051 for ; Thu, 8 Oct 2020 16:32:40 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by silver.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6F4AE20423 for ; Thu, 8 Oct 2020 16:32:40 +0000 (UTC) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at osuosl.org Received: from silver.osuosl.org ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (.osuosl.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 2LSqfUjFkLeg for ; Thu, 8 Oct 2020 16:32:39 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from mail-wm1-f46.google.com (mail-wm1-f46.google.com [209.85.128.46]) by silver.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id ED26D2038A for ; Thu, 8 Oct 2020 16:32:38 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-wm1-f46.google.com with SMTP id v12so7173339wmh.3 for ; Thu, 08 Oct 2020 09:32:38 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=ib.tc; s=google; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=5VL02bmkqVbYMM1VsFypG142rEEU146GXMifqlmd8bM=; b=DttNaS9x8Kt7IMIiD9Qu12I1Pzm4Q6awX8kLOA/7UOafxDrn7avwKlPqFT+5D6OO62 XWZWsZlJoM/jeFOqSpz1CPoqvPMzdH3fIbVnNfHmfd9jTcYt8ugZ1MFGKa5KJN9gisdS JNYHZNT76dufuujHGspoYHYzrCju4SV5FFpL4cYCh7u++ZZLJX+jjvxEVKaaeWFKlLHr OjQYDMmUeGuEjwkbo26OMMGiK6HXk8GKb3LdGKDqBmXRR5eudClwnMboE54Huqw6pmkC 8gRdMI5099lMRlyhQgc++zAbq4ISxjd4AGiVjJJADD0a4p1WeY7kk6euO4LcUfoTRuQG n8jw== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=5VL02bmkqVbYMM1VsFypG142rEEU146GXMifqlmd8bM=; b=S2JLBxW8u3SnTPlbDt4P2x9aMN8K7Y2t1SRCihzVpTGfacj1UrObvZZ+YBYqizzPpl 1RCBVgE/YaKbEVePNQbRe7RDc+bzEJyiQgIN3e3TJQyqITDLsyoUVqmcrWFjEl+PK/pw 6uEu01xOiC6gKU8vQOPo2i8+QmzqBtS7RAlyXDyMlVUlQt6mJsLLPU7jSWXaHpeQS9S+ 89jpkbJvKEpwLFhGU9d+0xr/DmaJqAjB3kQ2/NltKnW0pqvG0Gp+3+vQK4+NFiWY+0H2 MrCGWbU7brXQeuRL11O4pE/V59DedEp15N6isX37cIo90Nn2pIw+qCqF2vzswtHnLSUP LPTg== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM530t8igDIPv+iMurHO0Ry7C9o8TwAXaa6xR9Mk2Hw/wXkg5Xb9R4 MNVMF3q9dD7NwKp3dXZiuQi+ExQnt3n0jSvoifylsA== X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJzu3Ph0G40YM0htjDXjmNOL/gVYLkEpbmO2VSbOmUVXwOBGlNLbLOPfUDvyOjeRVKZk442vZytGv78XDFWj1bg= X-Received: by 2002:a1c:f608:: with SMTP id w8mr10290513wmc.161.1602174757370; Thu, 08 Oct 2020 09:32:37 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: In-Reply-To: From: Mike Brooks Date: Thu, 8 Oct 2020 17:16:40 -0700 Message-ID: To: Pieter Wuille Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="00000000000048172a05b12b6145" X-Mailman-Approved-At: Thu, 08 Oct 2020 16:44:55 +0000 Cc: Bitcoin Protocol Discussion 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 16:32:40 -0000 --00000000000048172a05b12b6145 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Pieter, You are correct. And also, I did prove what I set out to prove. The code provided privately to the security team will in fact consume 99% of the CPU, which means it does have an effect on the electorate. It is true the node still stubbornly passes messages, but I would argue that this is still very much a problem that would concern operators, and perhaps the threshold for a patch is much too high. A layered security system like what is found in bitcoin necessitates an attack chain. The `getdata` message is an implicit information disclosure that allows for the identification of dissenting nodes. As ZmnSCPxj pointed out, block mixing will give preemption at most 67% of the network, and the remaining dissenting nodes can be quelled by maxing out their processing power. All of this can be used together to make sure that a withheld block becomes the prevailing solution. FPNC rebalances incentives to serve the interests of the network, and fundamentally resolves a class of abuses that reshape the electorate. FPNC will produce a more deceliterized and fair network than "first seen." Cheers, Mike On Wed, Oct 7, 2020 at 5:12 PM Pieter Wuille wrote= : > On Wednesday, October 7, 2020 1:31 PM, Mike Brooks via bitcoin-dev < > bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote: > > 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. A= fter > touching base with ZmnSCPxj and Greg Maxwell there is an overwhelming vie= w > that the current problems that face the network outweigh any theoretical > ones. > > > Greg Maxwell isn't on this list, but assuming this is about the conversio= n > you've had on Bitcoin Core's security disclosure list, I believe this is = a > misrepresentation. The discussion has been mostly around a DoS attack > report which turned out to be a mistake. > > Cheers, > > -- > Pieter > > > --00000000000048172a05b12b6145 Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Pieter,

You are correct.

=
And also, I did prove what I set out to prove. The code provided= privately to the security team will in fact consume 99% of the CPU, which = means it does have an effect on the electorate.=C2=A0 It is true the node s= till stubbornly passes messages, but I would argue that this is still very = much a=C2=A0problem that would concern operators, and perhaps the threshold= for a patch is much too high.=C2=A0 A layered security system like what is= found in bitcoin necessitates an attack chain.=C2=A0 The `getdata` message= is an implicit information disclosure that allows for the identification o= f dissenting nodes.=C2=A0 =C2=A0As ZmnSCPxj pointed out, block mixing will = give preemption=C2=A0at most 67% of the network, and the remaining=C2=A0dis= senting nodes can be quelled=C2=A0by maxing out their processing power.=C2= =A0 All of this can be used together to make sure that a withheld block bec= omes the prevailing solution.

FPNC rebalances ince= ntives to serve the interests of the network, and fundamentally resolves a = class of abuses that reshape the electorate.=C2=A0 FPNC will produce a more= deceliterized and fair network than "first seen."

=
Cheers,
Mike

On Wed, Oct 7, 2020 at 5:12 PM Piete= r Wuille <bitcoin-dev@wuille.n= et> wrote:
bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:

=
But first of all, I'd like to say that the idea for FPNC = came out of a conversation=C2=A0with ZmnSCPxj's in regards to=C2=A0re-o= rg stability.=C2=A0 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=C2=A0=E2=80=94 and I gr= eatly appreciate this detail.=C2=A0 =C2=A0After touching base with ZmnSCPxj= and Greg Maxwell there is an overwhelming view that the current problems t= hat face the network outweigh any theoretical ones.

=
Greg Maxwell isn'= t on this list, but assuming this is about the conversion you've had on= Bitcoin Core's security disclosure list, I believe this is a misrepres= entation. The discussion has been mostly around a DoS attack report which t= urned out to be a mistake.

Cheers,

--
Pieter


--00000000000048172a05b12b6145--