đź“… Original date posted:2019-10-16
đź“ť Original message:On 10/12/19 1:46 PM, Tier Nolan via bitcoin-dev wrote:
> On Sat, Oct 12, 2019 at 6:56 PM Joachim Strömbergson <joachimstr at protonmail.com> wrote:
>> On different note, one of the problems that I haven't seen mentioned here
>> yet is the timewarp attack. It is relevant to some of the proposed
>> solutions. It should be possible, IIRC, for a malicious node to generate
>> much longer chain with superslow timestamp increase (~5 blocks in 1 second)
>> without increasing difficulty (i.e. staying at min. diff.). This could
>> produce chain that is ~2500 times longer than main chain without having
>> multiple branches.
>>
> [..]
>
> The timewarp bug can be fixed by a basic soft fork. You just need to limit
> the maximum difference between the timestamp for the first header in a
> period and the last header in the previous period.
Yeah, that makes sense as it corrects the off-by-one error. I think this
solution has been included in a draft proposal "The Great Consensus
Cleanup". It would need to be effective for not only the main chain but
also for any future forked chain.
Braydon Fuller [ARCHIVE] /
npub1fx…xxtaa
2023-06-07 18:21:05
in reply to nevent1q…7anh
Author Public Key
npub1fx2eyw7avet7dut0slazcehwvrrlhjp2u9jc9zd92l7nexpxeahs4xxtaaPublished at
2023-06-07 18:21:05Event JSON
{
"id": "5bfa227be0265ca59b73a9bbc3ad382e484459c5ff6ea4adb030f777c888c0f4",
"pubkey": "4995923bdd6657e6f16f87fa2c66ee60c7fbc82ae1658289a557fd3c9826cf6f",
"created_at": 1686162065,
"kind": 1,
"tags": [
[
"e",
"a9a6913f6fc9138fe7aab169ce2974e6f08bf4a75cd5918afea0770bbfe2c32f",
"",
"root"
],
[
"e",
"827056094b9cf91eb2d88df816866084f341cf74ca550560e107c0cac1f902e0",
"",
"reply"
],
[
"p",
"46986f86b97cc97829a031b03209644d134b939d0163375467f0b1363e0d875e"
]
],
"content": "📅 Original date posted:2019-10-16\n📝 Original message:On 10/12/19 1:46 PM, Tier Nolan via bitcoin-dev wrote:\n\n\u003e On Sat, Oct 12, 2019 at 6:56 PM Joachim Strömbergson \u003cjoachimstr at protonmail.com\u003e wrote:\n\u003e\u003e On different note, one of the problems that I haven't seen mentioned here\n\u003e\u003e yet is the timewarp attack. It is relevant to some of the proposed\n\u003e\u003e solutions. It should be possible, IIRC, for a malicious node to generate\n\u003e\u003e much longer chain with superslow timestamp increase (~5 blocks in 1 second)\n\u003e\u003e without increasing difficulty (i.e. staying at min. diff.). This could\n\u003e\u003e produce chain that is ~2500 times longer than main chain without having\n\u003e\u003e multiple branches.\n\u003e\u003e\n\u003e [..]\n\u003e\n\u003e The timewarp bug can be fixed by a basic soft fork. You just need to limit\n\u003e the maximum difference between the timestamp for the first header in a\n\u003e period and the last header in the previous period.\n\nYeah, that makes sense as it corrects the off-by-one error. I think this\nsolution has been included in a draft proposal \"The Great Consensus\nCleanup\". It would need to be effective for not only the main chain but\nalso for any future forked chain.",
"sig": "d8366903478ff46d28678350825d929c547df8ee52146ba25ad078cbde983cd2ea02fb6a901387833dc85ba5bc4db6fad6dc8de41ba30ef11ec66109c673b9d7"
}