* [bitcoin-dev] BIP suggestion: PoW proportional to block transaction sum @ 2018-05-30 16:17 Darren Weber 2018-06-05 10:50 ` Thomas Guyot-Sionnest 0 siblings, 1 reply; 3+ messages in thread From: Darren Weber @ 2018-05-30 16:17 UTC (permalink / raw) To: bitcoin-dev [-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 967 bytes --] 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. -- Darren [-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 1251 bytes --] ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 3+ messages in thread
* Re: [bitcoin-dev] BIP suggestion: PoW proportional to block transaction sum 2018-05-30 16:17 [bitcoin-dev] BIP suggestion: PoW proportional to block transaction sum Darren Weber @ 2018-06-05 10:50 ` Thomas Guyot-Sionnest 2018-06-06 21:01 ` Darren Weber 0 siblings, 1 reply; 3+ messages in thread From: Thomas Guyot-Sionnest @ 2018-06-05 10:50 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Darren Weber, Bitcoin Protocol Discussion 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 ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 3+ messages in thread
* Re: [bitcoin-dev] BIP suggestion: PoW proportional to block transaction sum 2018-06-05 10:50 ` Thomas Guyot-Sionnest @ 2018-06-06 21:01 ` Darren Weber 0 siblings, 0 replies; 3+ messages in thread From: Darren Weber @ 2018-06-06 21:01 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Thomas Guyot-Sionnest; +Cc: Bitcoin Protocol Discussion [-- 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 --] ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 3+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2018-06-06 21:01 UTC | newest] Thread overview: 3+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed) -- links below jump to the message on this page -- 2018-05-30 16:17 [bitcoin-dev] BIP suggestion: PoW proportional to block transaction sum Darren Weber 2018-06-05 10:50 ` Thomas Guyot-Sionnest 2018-06-06 21:01 ` Darren Weber
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox