Re: [bitcoin-dev] We need to fix the block withholding attack

2015-12-28 Thread Ivan Brightly via bitcoin-dev
> > On Mon, Dec 28, 2015 at 2:12 PM, Peter Todd via bitcoin-dev < > bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote: > Far more concerning is network propagation effects between large and > small miners. For that class of issues, if you are in an environemnt > where selfish mining is possible - a

Re: [bitcoin-dev] We need to fix the block withholding attack

2015-12-28 Thread Emin Gün Sirer via bitcoin-dev
On Mon, Dec 28, 2015 at 2:12 PM, Peter Todd via bitcoin-dev < bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote: > Do you specifically mean selfish mining as defined in Emin Gün > Sirer/Ittay Eyal's paper? Keep in mind that attack is only a significant > issue in a scenario - one malicious miner with

Re: [bitcoin-dev] We need to fix the block withholding attack

2015-12-28 Thread Peter Todd via bitcoin-dev
On Sat, Dec 26, 2015 at 12:12:13AM -0800, Multipool Admin wrote: > Any attempt to 'fix' this problem, would most likely require changes to all > mining software, why not just make mining more decentralized in general? > > For example, allow anyone to submit proofs of work to Bitcoind that are >

Re: [bitcoin-dev] We need to fix the block withholding attack

2015-12-28 Thread Multipool Admin via bitcoin-dev
On Mon, Dec 28, 2015 at 11:30 AM, Emin Gün Sirer < bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote: > > > On Mon, Dec 28, 2015 at 2:12 PM, Peter Todd via bitcoin-dev < > bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote: > >> Do you specifically mean selfish mining as defined in Emin Gün >> Sirer/Ittay

Re: [bitcoin-dev] We need to fix the block withholding attack

2015-12-28 Thread Multipool Admin via bitcoin-dev
On Mon, Dec 28, 2015 at 11:12 AM, Peter Todd wrote: > On Sat, Dec 26, 2015 at 12:12:13AM -0800, Multipool Admin wrote: > > Any attempt to 'fix' this problem, would most likely require changes to > all > > mining software, why not just make mining more decentralized in

[bitcoin-dev] We can trivially fix quadratic CHECKSIG with a simple soft-fork modifying just SignatureHash()

2015-12-28 Thread Peter Todd via bitcoin-dev
Occured to me that this hasn't been mentioned before... We can trivially fix the quadratic CHECK(MULTI)SIG execution time issue by soft-forking in a limitation on just SignatureHash() to only return true if the tx size is <100KB. (or whatever limit makes sense) This fix has the advantage over