Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] DS Deprecation Window

From: Tom Harding <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 28 Oct 2014 10:38:07 -0700

On 10/27/2014 7:36 PM, Gregory Maxwell wrote:
> Consider a malicious miner can concurrently flood all other miners
> with orthogonal double spends (which he doesn't mine himself). These
> other miners will all be spending some amount of their time mining on
> these transactions before realizing others consider them
> double-spends.

If I understand correctly, the simplest example of this attack is three 
transactions spending the same coin, distributed to two miners like this:

             Miner A    Miner B
Mempool       tx1a       tx1b
Relayed       tx2        tx2

Since relay has to be limited, Miner B doesn't know about tx1a until it 
is included in Miner A's block, so he delays that block (unless it 
appears very quickly).

To create this situation, attacker has to transmit all three 
transactions very quickly, or mempools will be too synchronized. 
Attacker tries to make it so that everyone else has a tx1a conflict that 
Miner A does not have.  Ditto for each individual victim, with different 
transactions (this seems very difficult).

Proposal shows that there is always a tiny risk to including tx1 when a 
double-spend is known, and I agree that this attack can add something to 
that risk.  Miner A can neutralize his risk by excluding any tx1 known 
to be double-spent, but as Thomas Zander wrote, that is an undesirable 
outcome.

However, Miner A has additional information - he knows how soon he 
received tx2 after receiving tx1a.

The attack has little chance of working if any of the malicious 
transactions are sent even, say, 10 seconds apart from each other. 
Dropping the labels for transmit-order numbering, if the 1->2 transmit 
gap is large, mempools will agree on 1.  If 1->2 gap is small, but the 
gap to 3 is large, mempools will agree on the 1-2 pair, but possibly 
have the order reversed.  Either way, mempools won't disagree on the 
existence of 1 unless the 1->3 gap is small.

So, I think it will be possible to quantify and target the risk of 
including tx1a to an arbitrarily low level, based on the local 
measurement of the time gap to tx2, and an effective threshold won't be 
very high.  It does highlight yet again, the shorter the time frame, the 
greater the risk.