From: Devrandom <c1.bitcoin@niftybox•net>
To: Peter Todd <pete@petertodd•org>
Cc: Bitcoin Protocol Discussion <bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation.org>
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Introducing a POW through a soft-fork
Date: Mon, 06 Nov 2017 22:39:02 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <CAB0O3SVsXL_zVBs-OFEaFuKTXoyYAiB8TEZStOfou7mMkHLMnA@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20171106195000.GA7245@fedora-23-dvm>
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2795 bytes --]
Hi Peter, thank you for the review. See below
On Mon, Nov 6, 2017 at 11:50 AM Peter Todd <pete@petertodd•org> wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 01, 2017 at 05:48:27AM +0000, Devrandom via bitcoin-dev wrote:
>
> Some quick thoughts...
>
> > Hi all,
> >
> > Feedback is welcome on the draft below. In particular, I want to see if
> > there is interest in further development of the idea and also interested
> in
> > any attack vectors or undesirable dynamics.
> >
> > (Formatted version available here:
> > https://github.com/devrandom/btc-papers/blob/master/aux-pow.md )
> >
> > # Soft-fork Introduction of a New POW
>
> First of all, I don't think you can really call this a soft-fork; I'd call
> it a
> "pseudo-soft-fork"
>
> My reasoning being that after implementation, a chain with less total work
> than
> the main chain - but more total SHA256^2 work than the main chain - might
> be
> followed by non-supporting clients. It's got some properties of a
> soft-fork,
> but it's security model is definitely different.
>
The interesting thing is that the cost of attack varies smoothly as you
vary the POW weights.
To attack non-upgraded nodes, you still have to "51%" the original POW.
The reward going to that POW will vary smoothly between 1.0 * block_reward
and whatever
target value (e.g. 0.5 * block_reward) and the difficulty of attack will
tend to be proportional to that.
In a real hard-fork, your software just breaks at the fork point. In this
case, it's just the non-upgraded
node security level declining from 100% to 50% over a long period of time.
I envision the transition of POW weights will be over 1-3 years, which
leaves plenty of time to
upgrade after the fork activates.
>
> > ### Aux POW intermediate block
> >
> > Auxiliary POW blocks are introduced between normal blocks - i.e. the
> chain
> > alternates between the two POWs.
> > Each aux-POW block points to the previous normal block and contains
> > transactions just like a normal block.
> > Each normal block points to the previous aux-POW block and must contain
> all
> > transactions from the aux-POW block.
>
> Note how you're basically proposing for the block interval to be decreased,
> which has security implications due to increased orphan rates.
>
Note that the total transaction rate and block size don't materially
change, so I don't
see why the orphan rate will change. Normal blocks are constrained to have
all of the txs of the aux blocks, so propagation time should stay the
same. Am I missing
something?
>
> > ### Heaviest chain rule change
> >
> > This is a semi-hard change, because non-upgraded nodes can get on the
> wrong
> > chain in case of attack. However,
>
> Exactly! Not really a soft-fork.
>
"smooth-fork" perhaps? :)
>
> --
> https://petertodd.org 'peter'[:-1]@petertodd.org
>
[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 4127 bytes --]
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2017-11-06 22:39 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 10+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2017-11-01 5:48 Devrandom
2017-11-02 23:55 ` Tao Effect
2017-11-03 1:02 ` Devrandom
2017-11-06 19:50 ` Peter Todd
2017-11-06 20:30 ` Paul Sztorc
2017-11-06 20:55 ` Eric Voskuil
2017-11-07 4:38 ` Devrandom
2017-11-11 19:51 ` Eric Voskuil
2017-11-06 22:39 ` Devrandom [this message]
2017-11-06 23:38 ` Devrandom
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=CAB0O3SVsXL_zVBs-OFEaFuKTXoyYAiB8TEZStOfou7mMkHLMnA@mail.gmail.com \
--to=c1.bitcoin@niftybox$(echo .)net \
--cc=bitcoin-dev@lists$(echo .)linuxfoundation.org \
--cc=pete@petertodd$(echo .)org \
/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