From: Darren Weber <dweber.consulting@gmail•com>
To: Thomas Guyot-Sionnest <dermoth@aei•ca>
Cc: Bitcoin Protocol Discussion <bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation.org>
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] BIP suggestion: PoW proportional to block transaction sum
Date: Wed, 6 Jun 2018 14:01:22 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <CAJfMfCpzAPA7HXdUYzxxVrrcgck1cJAAo3cdv2tAT3EnSpj_BA@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <3bf1d66e-8ebb-d475-04c4-a6b2c0a06794@aei.ca>
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2674 bytes --]
Hi Thomas,
Thanks for considering this suggestion. You've raised some interesting
points (and concluded that it could be very difficult to implement). I'm
not yet at a point where I could answer any questions about implementation
details with any authority. With that caveat, your points are worth
considering further and I will dwell on it for a bit.
Best regards,
Darren
On Tue, Jun 5, 2018 at 3:50 AM, Thomas Guyot-Sionnest <dermoth@aei•ca>
wrote:
> On 30/05/18 12:17 PM, Darren Weber via bitcoin-dev wrote:
> >
> > Apologies for brevity, noob here and just throwing out an idea in case
> > it's useful (probably already covered somewhere, but I haven't got
> > time to do all the necessary background research).
> >
> > From https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/13342
> >
> > Suggestion: To make it more difficult for a malicious attacker to
> > reap quick rewards by double-spending large amounts with a relatively
> > brief majority of the network hashing power, introduce a hash workload
> > that is proportional to the sum of transactions in a block (probably
> > the sum of the absolute values, and a "proportionality function" could
> > be linear or exponential). The motivation is to make it more
> > difficult for malicious attacks to hash-power their way through a few
> > large transactions. Obviously, there are costs in greater transaction
> > delays (and fees?) for larger amounts (absolute value).
> >
> > If there is original value in the idea, I can try to make time to
> > follow-up with a better BIP proposal.
> >
> Hi Darren,
>
> I'm wondering how do you think this can be implemented... The problem
> being that you cannot just decide to exclude transactions because you
> found a lesser difficulty hash since that hash includes all transactions
> already... Miners will either include or not these transactions based on
> economical value, and since most of the rewards still comes from block
> rewards there would be very little right now except with very high fees.
>
> Even worse, it may have detrimental side-effects: since there is no
> distinctions between destination and change addresses, one can only
> assume the transaction amount is the full input amount. Therefore users
> would be inclined to keep large amount in lots of smaller addresses to
> avoid being penalized on small transactions, increasing the UTXO size
> for everybody.
>
> And besides, this is a huge change to swallow, requiring very good
> consensus and a hard fork. IMHO I wouldn't even waste time on this.
>
> Regards,
>
> --
> Thomas
>
>
>
--
Darren L. Weber, Ph.D.
http://psdlw.users.sourceforge.net/
http://psdlw.users.sourceforge.net/wordpress/
[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 3733 bytes --]
prev parent reply other threads:[~2018-06-06 21:01 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 3+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2018-05-30 16:17 Darren Weber
2018-06-05 10:50 ` Thomas Guyot-Sionnest
2018-06-06 21:01 ` Darren Weber [this message]
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=CAJfMfCpzAPA7HXdUYzxxVrrcgck1cJAAo3cdv2tAT3EnSpj_BA@mail.gmail.com \
--to=dweber.consulting@gmail$(echo .)com \
--cc=bitcoin-dev@lists$(echo .)linuxfoundation.org \
--cc=dermoth@aei$(echo .)ca \
/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