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 AEAA2F6F for ; Sat, 26 Dec 2015 08:12:15 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from mail-oi0-f53.google.com (mail-oi0-f53.google.com [209.85.218.53]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id EDADE8C for ; Sat, 26 Dec 2015 08:12:14 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-oi0-f53.google.com with SMTP id y66so154672263oig.0 for ; Sat, 26 Dec 2015 00:12:14 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=multipool-us.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=gz3hGeG6lRvfRB9LDa13Jd89l+oVeHGd6r4fyYltVe4=; b=dpf4Rnz/YcyfqrJqfjrpWFuEZtjDq1SlVcB1HFdImPj3Yr2hdnUA2ahP+cY3Rvc26W 3Injzpo8cVOWMm8EDprkfH0pBxIu2FEcfwtSLd/GHuRIH+C/Vsoof9PEUOB8dxaVo0XE ZBfQNORpkp2vU6VCrF5zxwBXdhm+eIIyFAZeXAS3BsjXXTsAU3JSVepmS/79hq2FEMXt Wiv0Iz4JaRt8zeajsQGyRfZcSbYKJpst1ZPHLWdnccwLJ3MonMClx17ovLGs1C/nKH9d /E4e3Il/TehYLmaoJSMsznDa6E6NUTIavxFf2xds3Gw/tm1PhFMt3P4uOpQapS66Uk4r wl2A== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date :message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type; bh=gz3hGeG6lRvfRB9LDa13Jd89l+oVeHGd6r4fyYltVe4=; b=gKpVK+/z9gKMFE/nD+fBW6DthKTHpHeoNvwOv0UDAwlpFJXMxqApkOg7RFadWV0Dd0 wI6HihDjHd6umSmhLD9BtoMfsCHfiBVrnYtvIx3ud7cHS27iIxjQqz72MCA0fJKbs3Q2 5EgP36qt0XgkTptDPQt/uqthMEnLgHZD6nFo44ovr0lEUfCiFwdpV+v2h8h5KOEGXWZ3 T75mfrOMwTkIOK/d7swtpAMbSc9HY2XyZkz1wMvb7dzTwHmzB2xR2qIbnJxnpc8gclwO 4QeFRvc1AjhvE9y71355LunS2X37fqg1x6gq1uZJ41Hj7Typphrn54sjKTHDn9REmuds 4Zxw== X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQnTRJp+Bp9Up4kZiUuEOO6NTRhMu4GXCjeAGyZQRXd3pRO9UPhjPI7OztMvAvRlMzEqEYUMwssg3IiTCwh5UFDHv7b95w== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.202.58.136 with SMTP id h130mr18479870oia.89.1451117533890; Sat, 26 Dec 2015 00:12:13 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.182.200.166 with HTTP; Sat, 26 Dec 2015 00:12:13 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <20151220044450.GA23942@muck> References: <20151219184240.GB12893@muck> <4882BD35-D890-4860-9222-5C23AEB6AE89@mattcorallo.com> <20151220044450.GA23942@muck> Date: Sat, 26 Dec 2015 00:12:13 -0800 Message-ID: From: Multipool Admin To: Peter Todd Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a113ce05a22a3030527c8a188 X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,HTML_MESSAGE,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW autolearn=ham version=3.3.1 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on smtp1.linux-foundation.org Cc: Bitcoin Dev Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] We need to fix the block withholding attack X-BeenThere: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Bitcoin Development Discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 26 Dec 2015 08:12:15 -0000 --001a113ce05a22a3030527c8a188 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Any attempt to 'fix' this problem, would most likely require changes to all mining software, why not just make mining more decentralized in general? For example, allow anyone to submit proofs of work to Bitcoind that are some fraction of the network difficulty and receive payment for them if they're valid. This would also encourage the proliferation of full nodes since anyone could solo mine again. Then, the next coinbase transaction could be split among, say, the top 100 proofs of work. Eligius already does their miner payouts like this. If you want to fix an issue with mining, fix the selfish mining issue first as it's a much larger and more dangerous potential issue. I don't believe it was ever clearly established whether Eligius suffered a block withholding attack or was just the victim of a miner with (what was, at the time) a large amount of faulty hardware, however, from the Bitcointalk threads at the time I believe it was assumed to be the latter. --Adam On Sat, Dec 19, 2015 at 8:44 PM, Peter Todd via bitcoin-dev < bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote: > On Sat, Dec 19, 2015 at 07:43:59PM -0800, Chris Priest via bitcoin-dev > wrote: > > Then shouldn't this be something the pool deals with, not the bitcoin > protocol? > > There is no known way for pools - especially ones that allow anonymous > hashers - to effectively prevent block withholding attacks without > changing the Bitcoin protocol. > > -- > 'peter'[:-1]@petertodd.org > 00000000000000000188b6321da7feae60d74c7b0becbdab3b1a0bd57f10947d > > _______________________________________________ > bitcoin-dev mailing list > bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org > https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev > > --001a113ce05a22a3030527c8a188 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Any attempt to 'fix' this problem, would most like= ly require changes to all mining software, why not just make mining more de= centralized in general?

For example, allow anyone to sub= mit proofs of work to Bitcoind that are some fraction of the network diffic= ulty and receive payment for them if they're valid.=C2=A0 This would al= so encourage the proliferation of full nodes since anyone could solo mine a= gain.=C2=A0 Then, the next coinbase transaction could be split among, say, = the top 100 proofs of work.

Eligius already does t= heir miner payouts like this.

If you want to fix a= n issue with mining, fix the selfish mining issue first as it's a much = larger and more dangerous potential issue.

I don&#= 39;t believe it was ever clearly established whether Eligius suffered a blo= ck withholding attack or was just the victim of a miner with (what was, at = the time) a large amount of faulty hardware, however, from the Bitcointalk = threads at the time I believe it was assumed to be the latter.
--Adam

On Sat, Dec 19, 2015 at 8:44 PM, Peter Todd vi= a bitcoin-dev <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
On = Sat, Dec 19, 2015 at 07:43:59PM -0800, Chris Priest via bitcoin-dev wrote:<= br> > Then shouldn't this be something the pool deals with, not the bitc= oin protocol?

There is no known way for pools - especially ones that allow anonymo= us
hashers - to effectively prevent block withholding attacks without
changing the Bitcoin protocol.

--
'peter'[:-1]@petertodd.org
00000000000000000188b6321da7feae60d74c7b0becbdab3b1a0bd57f10947d

_______________________________________________
bitcoin-dev mailing list
bitcoin-dev@lists.= linuxfoundation.org
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mail= man/listinfo/bitcoin-dev


--001a113ce05a22a3030527c8a188--