From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from sog-mx-2.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.192] helo=mx.sourceforge.net) by sfs-ml-2.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76) (envelope-from ) id 1VvMYe-0008L6-3g for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Tue, 24 Dec 2013 07:37:40 +0000 Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-2.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of gmail.com designates 74.125.82.178 as permitted sender) client-ip=74.125.82.178; envelope-from=ryacko@gmail.com; helo=mail-we0-f178.google.com; Received: from mail-we0-f178.google.com ([74.125.82.178]) by sog-mx-2.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128) (Exim 4.76) id 1VvMYc-0004Zu-TI for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Tue, 24 Dec 2013 07:37:40 +0000 Received: by mail-we0-f178.google.com with SMTP id u57so5630735wes.37 for ; Mon, 23 Dec 2013 23:37:32 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.194.142.142 with SMTP id rw14mr409760wjb.87.1387870652703; Mon, 23 Dec 2013 23:37:32 -0800 (PST) Sender: ryacko@gmail.com Received: by 10.194.188.6 with HTTP; Mon, 23 Dec 2013 23:37:32 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <52B8EB37.2080006@monetize.io> References: <52B7AC86.9010808@monetize.io> <52B8EB37.2080006@monetize.io> Date: Mon, 23 Dec 2013 23:37:32 -0800 X-Google-Sender-Auth: 3yw3HIRFLLvSQJBU0-T-wsaXkts Message-ID: From: Ryan Carboni To: Mark Friedenbach , bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=089e013a16a43faaca04ee42d122 X-Spam-Score: -0.6 (/) X-Spam-Report: Spam Filtering performed by mx.sourceforge.net. See http://spamassassin.org/tag/ for more details. -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 (ryacko[at]gmail.com) -0.0 SPF_PASS SPF: sender matches SPF record 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: gpgtools.org] 1.0 HTML_MESSAGE BODY: HTML included in message -0.1 DKIM_VALID_AU Message has a valid DKIM or DK signature from author's domain 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: 1VvMYc-0004Zu-TI Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] Bitcoin difficulty sanity check suggestion 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: Tue, 24 Dec 2013 07:37:40 -0000 --089e013a16a43faaca04ee42d122 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 It does take a state-level actor to apparently disconnect *multiple *miners from the rest of the network. How many Bitcoin miners hash an entire percent or more of the Bitcoin network? What you're proposing is an attack at the highest levels of the internet infrastructure. On Mon, Dec 23, 2013 at 6:02 PM, Mark Friedenbach wrote: > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA1 > > Which would leave you entirely in the hands of your dialup provider. > Or the manufacturer of your switch. Or your ISP's backbone provider. > It does not take a state-level actor to do network attacks. > > BTW, what does "difficulty would be reset" mean? There are multiple > ways to interpret that statement. In the most straightforward way, my > objections apply. > > On 12/23/2013 05:51 PM, Ryan Carboni wrote: > > I think you misunderstood my statement. If time > 3 days, and after > > 4 blocks have been mined, then difficulty would be reset. > > > > In theory, one would have to isolate roughly one percent of the > > Bitcoin network's hashing power to do so. Which would indicate an > > attack by a state actor as opposed to anything else. Arguably, the > > safest way to run Bitcoin is through a proprietary dial-up > > network. > > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- > Version: GnuPG v1.4.14 (GNU/Linux) > Comment: GPGTools - http://gpgtools.org > Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/ > > iQIcBAEBAgAGBQJSuOs3AAoJEAdzVfsmodw4BwAP/0Ynq/SxNIBFFdL7RaSiE5KM > zNRtlZJCYvmCXgKKtMyO+Ron+YGqY8yg8r0ifb6oqlJCG5t0msExym/CA9CYMV6V > UnVaGaNkFrLSF1q8Dt6X4I9OSeCiBstahQOjPaerUycLTY2W/cKPblhCC0rvXrfI > 3Fz3p6SHbCcNHw89w6ry3QG420+UNroFCpNu+Oa2YfWoZY2p91JLbuiUwXL5KEac > PDskHGsb9q1vyAkCJ6eOp3MJfFP/Dy7mASVwPql/nzf2ceSDtO4dpngo0uNsCwFo > QSWIRdWv4OiJk1OM6fjEj/51mebczgO0ShczRKk9QkX4FEFEqP/ARdbl8bSC4IsT > /3s2HHiYDahEOMiXV5ao3kmBpyUR8p4erRbtwRzdZzOgGL37yxj8VGmY93bkVQNB > zi2n3WCCju0a+gqREyaEFAM8kPIhx9++YNIddwQxK38njUSe2CzqM8t+28ZfseYl > YnQeNFUfcmvzhxTXxgyoCuGF5HbFRTn/AallkYSPxYtxGq4WuLN36BS3cTv8wCLz > sYTyuxWxjZ7CS8fx8MWilw72tQf9torwmrWJtjgRLFE3OvQxRjN+ppDV8cfC8UAB > p0CGzBgVaw5yZ5LzCawQVTGWJdzs+ZPlQu8SO53dHhEtRAmdbFa0mMD2FrS/5Ih/ > YcwdP6Xm69HTgzCenu5F > =HtRS > -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- > --089e013a16a43faaca04ee42d122 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
It does take a state-level actor to apparently disconnect = multiple miners from the rest of the network.

How= many Bitcoin miners hash an entire percent or more of the Bitcoin network?= What you're proposing is an attack at the highest levels of the intern= et infrastructure.


On Mon,= Dec 23, 2013 at 6:02 PM, Mark Friedenbach <mark@monetize.io>= wrote:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESS= AGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Which would leave you entirely in the hands of your dialup provider.<= br> Or the manufacturer of your switch. Or your ISP's backbone provider. It does not take a state-level actor to do network attacks.

BTW, what does "difficulty would be reset" mean? There are multip= le
ways to interpret that statement. In the most straightforward way, my
objections apply.

On 12/23/2013 05:51 PM, Ryan Carboni wrote:
> I think you misunderstood my statement. If time > 3 days, and after=
> 4 blocks have been mined, then difficulty would be reset.
>
> In theory, one would have to isolate roughly one percent of the
> Bitcoin network's hashing power to do so. Which would indicate an<= br> > attack by a state actor as opposed to anything else. Arguably, the
> safest way to run Bitcoin is through a proprietary dial-up
> network.
>
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.14 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: GPGTools - http:= //gpgtools.org
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/
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=3DHtRS
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--089e013a16a43faaca04ee42d122--