📅 Original date posted:2011-09-14
🗒️ Summary of this message: Delay forwarding of blocks and extensions to increase Bitcoin's overall health. Miners at risk if they don't adopt this policy. Fix root cause to maintain security.
📝 Original message:On Wed, Sep 14, 2011 at 3:52 PM, Aidan Thornton <makosoft at gmail.com> wrote:
> Of course, if only a small percentage of mining power adopts this
> scheme, everyone that does so will presumably be harming themselves by
> doing so since they're essentially increasing the odds that the next
> block they mine will become invalid...
Perhaps better thing to do is to also delay the _forwarding_ of these
blocks _and_ blocks that extend them, until extended one more time.
This policy, if adopted by the forwarding nodes (who really shouldn't
care for much other than the overall health of bitcoins) puts miners
at risk if they don't run the augmented extension policy.
Though I generally agree with Luke that we should just fix the root
cause even though it forks the chain. Not for his reasons (I don't
give a crap about the burden on _one_ pool operator— the rest cope
with bitcoind scaling fine without excessive dependance on ntime
rolling), but simply because not fixing it makes the bitcoin security
model harder to explain and analyze.
"Here is a vulnerability, but its offset by this workaround" is
inferior to "the system is secure against this kind of attack".
Gregory Maxwell [ARCHIVE] /
npub1f2…crwet
2023-06-07 02:25:40
in reply to nevent1q…c6yr
Author Public Key
npub1f2nvlx49er5c7sqa43src6ssyp6snd4qwvtkwm5avc2l84cs84esecrwetSeen on
wss://relay.noswhere.comPublished at
2023-06-07 02:25:40Event JSON
{
"id": "9c23544701b467728b9a36bc92b9672124a2f6ff00411932446a9b94e8f5da94",
"pubkey": "4aa6cf9aa5c8e98f401dac603c6a10207509b6a07317676e9d6615f3d7103d73",
"created_at": 1686104740,
"kind": 1,
"tags": [
[
"e",
"c5d8eb0720120c08594c588b2c728c7a4f1ca34d1ae4dfac6ef6225ba2d5a835",
"",
"root"
],
[
"e",
"95e72e88c3aa5321eb67606c26419255deb49a692d28694e0a04810e5a5f7a50",
"",
"reply"
],
[
"p",
"38fb9fcb632ad32c4bd3c3008b319ead7b53af5f0d8af3095417d8587fba132a"
]
],
"content": "📅 Original date posted:2011-09-14\n🗒️ Summary of this message: Delay forwarding of blocks and extensions to increase Bitcoin's overall health. Miners at risk if they don't adopt this policy. Fix root cause to maintain security.\n📝 Original message:On Wed, Sep 14, 2011 at 3:52 PM, Aidan Thornton \u003cmakosoft at gmail.com\u003e wrote:\n\u003e Of course, if only a small percentage of mining power adopts this\n\u003e scheme, everyone that does so will presumably be harming themselves by\n\u003e doing so since they're essentially increasing the odds that the next\n\u003e block they mine will become invalid...\n\nPerhaps better thing to do is to also delay the _forwarding_ of these\nblocks _and_ blocks that extend them, until extended one more time.\n\nThis policy, if adopted by the forwarding nodes (who really shouldn't\ncare for much other than the overall health of bitcoins) puts miners\nat risk if they don't run the augmented extension policy.\n\n\nThough I generally agree with Luke that we should just fix the root\ncause even though it forks the chain. Not for his reasons (I don't\ngive a crap about the burden on _one_ pool operator— the rest cope\nwith bitcoind scaling fine without excessive dependance on ntime\nrolling), but simply because not fixing it makes the bitcoin security\nmodel harder to explain and analyze.\n\n\"Here is a vulnerability, but its offset by this workaround\" is\ninferior to \"the system is secure against this kind of attack\".",
"sig": "5023d8b7022f1401a0e281f724e8a940897a90825aa6555c8ed29a95b176edec161d31717664b5a0cf6afff4830c81d6eeea06f562ab1a780afdd8d4178473d4"
}