From: Mike Brooks <m@ib•tc>
To: Pieter Wuille <bitcoin-dev@wuille•net>
Cc: Bitcoin Protocol Discussion <bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation.org>
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Progress on Miner Withholding - FPNC
Date: Thu, 8 Oct 2020 17:16:40 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <CALFqKjTOKAE=zh6EZEzK+Y1xdJiy_F33S43=dryJv9oKWG02NQ@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <rhkjkcbglvbiQpSVK8NA0jUpRqfLj4zNnGiV0AWxcALnyJF5vHqEtw1Jf-GAq9yfjrnPSXV_p9SPDZgjoEaVIj4w6tJMbhhrQ5Xoyp7Us_I=@wuille.net>
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2219 bytes --]
Pieter,
You are correct.
And also, I did prove what I set out to prove. The code provided privately
to the security team will in fact consume 99% of the CPU, which means it
does have an effect on the electorate. It is true the node still
stubbornly passes messages, but I would argue that this is still very much
a problem that would concern operators, and perhaps the threshold for a
patch is much too high. A layered security system like what is found in
bitcoin necessitates an attack chain. The `getdata` message is an implicit
information disclosure that allows for the identification of dissenting
nodes. As ZmnSCPxj pointed out, block mixing will give preemption at most
67% of the network, and the remaining dissenting nodes can be quelled by
maxing out their processing power. All of this can be used together to
make sure that a withheld block becomes the prevailing solution.
FPNC rebalances incentives to serve the interests of the network, and
fundamentally resolves a class of abuses that reshape the electorate. FPNC
will produce a more deceliterized and fair network than "first seen."
Cheers,
Mike
On Wed, Oct 7, 2020 at 5:12 PM Pieter Wuille <bitcoin-dev@wuille•net> wrote:
> On Wednesday, October 7, 2020 1:31 PM, Mike Brooks via bitcoin-dev <
> bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
>
> But first of all, I'd like to say that the idea for FPNC came out of a
> conversation with ZmnSCPxj's in regards to re-org stability. When I had
> proposed blockchain pointers with the PubRef opcode, he took the time to
> explain to me concerns around re-orgs and why it is a bigger problem than I
> initially had thought — and I greatly appreciate this detail. After
> touching base with ZmnSCPxj and Greg Maxwell there is an overwhelming view
> that the current problems that face the network outweigh any theoretical
> ones.
>
>
> Greg Maxwell isn't on this list, but assuming this is about the conversion
> you've had on Bitcoin Core's security disclosure list, I believe this is a
> misrepresentation. The discussion has been mostly around a DoS attack
> report which turned out to be a mistake.
>
> Cheers,
>
> --
> Pieter
>
>
>
[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 2881 bytes --]
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2020-10-08 16:32 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 6+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2020-10-08 4:04 Mike Brooks
2020-10-08 0:12 ` Pieter Wuille
2020-10-09 0:16 ` Mike Brooks [this message]
2020-10-08 1:39 ` ZmnSCPxj
2020-10-08 9:18 ` Önder Gürcan
2020-10-08 23:05 ` Mike Brooks
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='CALFqKjTOKAE=zh6EZEzK+Y1xdJiy_F33S43=dryJv9oKWG02NQ@mail.gmail.com' \
--to=m@ib$(echo .)tc \
--cc=bitcoin-dev@lists$(echo .)linuxfoundation.org \
--cc=bitcoin-dev@wuille$(echo .)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