From: kjj <bitcoin-devel@jerviss•org>
To: Bitcoin-development@lists•sourceforge.net
Subject: [Bitcoin-development] we can all relax now
Date: Tue, 05 Nov 2013 23:33:17 -0600 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <5279D49D.5050807@jerviss.org> (raw)
One of the things that really gets me going is when someone devises a
model, tests it against itself, and then pretends that they've learned
something about the real world.
Naturally, the Selfish Mining paper is exactly this sort of nonsense.
Their model is one with no latency, and one where the attacker has total
visibility across the network. An iterated FSM is not a suitable
simulation of the bitcoin system. The bitcoin network does not have
states, and to the extent that you can pretend that we do, you can't
simulate transitions between them with static probabilities.
The authors understand this deep down inside, even though they didn't
work out the implications. They handwave the issue by assuming a total
sybil attack, and in true academic spirit, they don't realize that the
condition necessary for the attack is far, far worse than the attack itself.
Greg said he'd like to run some simulations, and I'm thinking about it
too. Unfortunately, he is busy all week, and I'm lazy (and also busy
for most of tomorrow).
If neither of us get to it first, I'm willing to pitch in 1 BTC as a
bounty for building a general bitcoin network simulator framework. The
simulator should be able to account for latency between nodes, and
ideally within a node. It needs to be able to simulate an attacker that
owns varying fractions of the network, and make decisions based only on
what the attacker actually knows. It needs to be able to simulate this
"attack" and should be generic enough to be easily modified for other
crazy schemes.
(Bounty offer is serious, but expires in one year [based on the earliest
timestamp that my mail server puts on this email], and /may/ be subject
to change if the price on any reputable exchange breaks 1000 USD per BTC
in that period.)
Basically, the lack of a decent network simulator is what allowed this
paper to get press. If the author had been able to see the importance
of the stuff he was ignoring, we wouldn't be wasting so much time
correcting him (and sadly the reporters that have no way to check his
claims).
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=324413.msg3495663#msg3495663
next reply other threads:[~2013-11-06 5:33 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 21+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2013-11-06 5:33 kjj [this message]
2013-11-06 9:26 ` Frank F
2013-11-06 11:35 ` Jeff Garzik
2013-11-06 18:06 ` Christophe Biocca
2013-11-07 3:44 ` Peter Todd
2013-11-07 4:15 ` Kyle Jerviss
2013-11-07 4:33 ` Peter Todd
2013-11-07 4:59 ` Kyle Jerviss
2013-11-07 13:09 ` Peter Todd
2013-11-07 4:56 ` Gavin Andresen
2013-11-07 13:24 ` Peter Todd
2013-11-07 16:14 ` Mike Hearn
2013-11-07 18:28 ` Daniel Lidstrom
2013-11-08 19:49 ` Andreas M. Antonopoulos
2013-11-08 20:33 ` Gregory Maxwell
2013-11-15 10:58 ` Peter Todd
2013-11-07 8:07 ` Jannes Faber
2013-11-07 5:24 ` Kyle Jerviss
2013-11-06 18:17 ` Melvin Carvalho
2013-11-06 22:19 ` Jouke Hofman
2014-05-10 11:05 ` E willbefull
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=5279D49D.5050807@jerviss.org \
--to=bitcoin-devel@jerviss$(echo .)org \
--cc=Bitcoin-development@lists$(echo .)sourceforge.net \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
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