From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from sog-mx-1.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.191] helo=mx.sourceforge.net) by sfs-ml-2.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76) (envelope-from ) id 1VeSEQ-00043N-5S for Bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Thu, 07 Nov 2013 16:14:54 +0000 Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-1.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of gmail.com designates 209.85.219.50 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.85.219.50; envelope-from=mh.in.england@gmail.com; helo=mail-oa0-f50.google.com; Received: from mail-oa0-f50.google.com ([209.85.219.50]) by sog-mx-1.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128) (Exim 4.76) id 1VeSEO-0008Tv-SZ for Bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Thu, 07 Nov 2013 16:14:54 +0000 Received: by mail-oa0-f50.google.com with SMTP id j17so1165277oag.23 for ; Thu, 07 Nov 2013 08:14:47 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.60.120.69 with SMTP id la5mr142313oeb.86.1383840887410; Thu, 07 Nov 2013 08:14:47 -0800 (PST) Sender: mh.in.england@gmail.com Received: by 10.76.156.42 with HTTP; Thu, 7 Nov 2013 08:14:47 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <20131107132442.GB22476@savin> References: <5279D49D.5050807@jerviss.org> <20131107034404.GA5140@savin> <20131107132442.GB22476@savin> Date: Thu, 7 Nov 2013 17:14:47 +0100 X-Google-Sender-Auth: AaQqu9zR2uus1UkV1SW6hWE_esk Message-ID: From: Mike Hearn To: Peter Todd Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=047d7b33955985187904ea989086 X-Spam-Score: -0.5 (/) X-Spam-Report: Spam Filtering performed by mx.sourceforge.net. See http://spamassassin.org/tag/ for more details. 0.0 URIBL_BLOCKED ADMINISTRATOR NOTICE: The query to URIBL was blocked. See http://wiki.apache.org/spamassassin/DnsBlocklists#dnsbl-block for more information. [URIs: doubleclick.net] -1.5 SPF_CHECK_PASS SPF reports sender host as permitted sender for sender-domain 0.0 FREEMAIL_FROM Sender email is commonly abused enduser mail provider (mh.in.england[at]gmail.com) -0.0 SPF_PASS SPF: sender matches SPF record 1.0 HTML_MESSAGE BODY: HTML included in message 0.1 DKIM_SIGNED Message has a DKIM or DK signature, not necessarily valid -0.1 DKIM_VALID Message has at least one valid DKIM or DK signature X-Headers-End: 1VeSEO-0008Tv-SZ Cc: webmaster@ghash.io, webmaster@cex.io, Bitcoin Dev Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] we can all relax now X-BeenThere: bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 07 Nov 2013 16:14:54 -0000 --047d7b33955985187904ea989086 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Once the ASIC race calms down because everyone has one, has more or less optimal power supplies, process improvements aren't easily reachable anymore etc then I'd expect people to dissipate from the large pools because eliminating their fees will become the next lowest hanging fruit to squeeze out extra profit. There's no particular reason we need only a handful of pools that control a major fraction of the hashpower. If we end up with a few hundred pools or lots of miners on p2pool, then a lot of these theoretical attacks become not very relevant (I don't think ID sacrifices will be so common or large as to justify a pile of custom mining code+strategies at any point ...) On Thu, Nov 7, 2013 at 2:24 PM, Peter Todd wrote: > On Thu, Nov 07, 2013 at 02:56:56PM +1000, Gavin Andresen wrote: > > > P.S: If any large pools want to try this stuff out, give me a shout. > You > > > have my PGP key - confidentiality assured. > > > > > > > If I find out one of the large pools decides to run this 'experiment' on > > the main network, I will make it my mission to tell people to switch to a > > more responsible pool. > > I hope they listen. > > A few months ago ASICMiner could have made use of that attack if my > memories of their peak hashing power were correct. They certainely could > have used the selfish miner version, (we need better name for that) > although development costs would eat into profits. > > GHash.IO, 22%, says they're a "private Bitfury ASIC mining pool" - dunno > what they mean by that, but they're involved with CEX.IO who has > physical control of a bunch of hashing power so I guess that means their > model is like ASICMiners. They're a bit short of 30%, but maybe some > behind-the-scenes deals would fix that, and/or lowering the barrier with > reactive block publishing. (a better name) > > > And if you think you can get away with driving up EVERYBODY's orphan rate > > without anybody noticing, you should think again. > > ...and remember, if you only do the attack a little bit, you still can > earn more profit, and only drive up the orphan rate a little bit. So who > knows, maybe the orphans are real, or maybe they're an attack? ASICMiner > was involved with a bunch of orphans a while back... > > You know what this calls for? A witchhunt! > > BURN THE LARGE POOLS! > > > > P.P.S: If you're mining on a pool with more than, like, 1% hashing > > > power, do the math on varience... Seriously, stop it and go mine on a > > > smaller pool, or better yet, p2pool. > > > > > > > That I agree with. > > Glad to hear. > > -- > 'peter'[:-1]@petertodd.org > 0000000000000007bd936f19e33bc8b8f9bb1f4c013b863ef60a7f5a6a5d2112 > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > November Webinars for C, C++, Fortran Developers > Accelerate application performance with scalable programming models. > Explore > techniques for threading, error checking, porting, and tuning. Get the most > from the latest Intel processors and coprocessors. See abstracts and > register > http://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/clk?id=60136231&iu=/4140/ostg.clktrk > _______________________________________________ > Bitcoin-development mailing list > Bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development > > --047d7b33955985187904ea989086 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Once the ASIC race calms down because everyone has one, ha= s more or less optimal power supplies, process improvements aren't easi= ly reachable anymore etc then I'd expect people to dissipate from the l= arge pools because eliminating their fees will become the next lowest hangi= ng fruit to squeeze out extra profit. There's no particular reason we n= eed only a handful of pools that control a major fraction of the hashpower.= =C2=A0

If we end up with a few hundred pools or lots of miners on p= 2pool, then a lot of these theoretical attacks become not very relevant (I = don't think ID sacrifices will be so common or large as to justify a pi= le of custom mining code+strategies at any point ...)


On Thu,= Nov 7, 2013 at 2:24 PM, Peter Todd <pete@petertodd.org> wr= ote:
On Thu, Nov 07, 2013 at 02= :56:56PM +1000, Gavin Andresen wrote:
> > P.S: If any large pools want to try this stuff out, give me a sho= ut. You
> > have my PGP key - confidentiality assured.
> >
>
> If I find out one of the large pools decides to run this 'experime= nt' on
> the main network, I will make it my mission to tell people to switch t= o a
> more responsible pool.

I hope they listen.

A few months ago ASICMiner could have made use of that attack if my
memories of their peak hashing power were correct. They certainely could have used the selfish miner version, (we need better name for that)
although development costs would eat into profits.

GHash.IO, 22%, says they're a "private Bitfury ASIC mining pool&qu= ot; - dunno
what they mean by that, but they're involved with CEX.IO who has
physical control of a bunch of hashing power so I guess that means their model is like ASICMiners. They're a bit short of 30%, but maybe some behind-the-scenes deals would fix that, and/or lowering the barrier with reactive block publishing. (a better name)

> And if you think you can get away with driving up EVERYBODY's orph= an rate
> without anybody noticing, you should think again.

...and remember, if you only do the attack a little bit, you still ca= n
earn more profit, and only drive up the orphan rate a little bit. So who knows, maybe the orphans are real, or maybe they're an attack? ASICMine= r
was involved with a bunch of orphans a while back...

You know what this calls for? A witchhunt!

BURN THE LARGE POOLS!

> > P.P.S: If you're mining on a pool with more than, like, 1% ha= shing
> > power, do the math on varience... Seriously, stop it and go mine = on a
> > smaller pool, or better yet, p2pool.
> >
>
> That I agree with.

Glad to hear.

--
'peter'[:-1]@pet= ertodd.org
0000000000000007bd936f19e33bc8b8f9bb1f4c013b863ef60a7f5a6a5d2112

---------------------------------------------------------= ---------------------
November Webinars for C, C++, Fortran Developers
Accelerate application performance with scalable programming models. Explor= e
techniques for threading, error checking, porting, and tuning. Get the most=
from the latest Intel processors and coprocessors. See abstracts and regist= er
http://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gam= pad/clk?id=3D60136231&iu=3D/4140/ostg.clktrk
___________________= ____________________________
Bitcoin-development mailing list
Bitcoin-develo= pment@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-de= velopment


--047d7b33955985187904ea989086--