Tom Harding [ARCHIVE] on Nostr: 📅 Original date posted:2014-05-03 📝 Original message:This idea was suggested by ...

📅 Original date posted:2014-05-03
📝 Original message:This idea was suggested by "Joe" on 2011-02-14
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=3441.msg48484#msg48484 . It
deserves another look.

Nodes today make a judgment regarding which of several conflicting
spends to accept, and which is a double-spend. But there is no
incorporation of these collective judgments into the blockchain. So
today, it's the wild west, right up until the next block. To address this:

- Using its own clock, node associates a timestamp with every
transaction upon first seeing its tx hash (at inv, in a block, or when
created)
- Node relays respend attempts (subject to anti-DOS rules, see github
PR #3883)
- Eventually, node adds a consensus rule:
Do not accept blocks containing a transaction tx2 where
- tx2 respends an output spent by another locally accepted
transaction tx1, and
- timestamp(tx2) - timestamp(tx1) > T

What is T?

According to http://bitcoinstats.com/network/propagation/ recent tx
propagation has a median of 1.3 seconds. If double-spender introduces
both transactions from the same node, assuming propagation times
distributed exponentially with median 1.3 seconds, the above consensus
rule with reject threshold T = 7.4 seconds would result in
mis-identification of the second-spend by less than 1% of nodes.*

If tx1 and tx2 are introduced in mutually time-distant parts of the
network, a population of nodes in between would be able to accept either
transaction, as they can today. But the attacker still has to introduce
them at close to the same time, or the majority of the network will
confirm the one introduced earlier.

Merchant is watching also, and these dynamics mean he will not have to
watch for very long to gain confidence if he was going to get
double-spent, he would have learned it by now. The consensus rule also
makes mining a never-broadcast double-spend quite difficult, because the
network assigns it very late timestamps. Miner has to get lucky and
find the block very quickly. In other words, it converges to a Finney
attack.

This would be the first consensus rule that anticipated less than 100%
agreement. But the parameters could be chosen so that it was still
extremely conservative. Joe also suggested a fail-safe condition: drop
this rule if block has 6 confirmations, to prevent a fork in unusual
network circumstances.

We can't move toward this, or any, solution without more data. Today,
the network is not transparent to double-spend attempts, so we mostly
have to guess what the quantitative effects would be. The first step is
to share the data broadly by relaying first double-spend attempts as in
github PR #3883.


*Calcs:
For Exp(lambda), median ln(2)/lambda = 1.3 ==> lambda = .533
Laplace(0,1/lambda) < .01 ==> T = 7.34 seconds