📅 Original date posted:2015-12-20
📝 Original message:On Sun, Dec 20, 2015 at 5:12 AM, Emin Gün Sirer <
bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
> An attacker pool (A) can take a certain portion of its hashpower,
> use it to mine on behalf of victim pool (B), furnish partial proofs of work
> to B, but discard any full blocks it discovers.
>
I wonder if part of the problem here is that there is no pool identity
linked to mining pools.
If the mining protocols were altered so that miners had to indicate their
identity, then a pool couldn't forward hashing power to their victim.
If the various mining protocols were updated, they could allow checking
that the work has the domain name of the pool included. Pools would have
to include their domain name in the block header.
A pool which provides this service is publicly saying that they will not
use the block withholding attack. Any two pools which are doing it cannot
attack each other (since they have different domain names). This creates
an incentive for pools to start supporting the feature.
Owners of hashing power also have an incentive to operate with pools which
offer this identity. It means that they can ensure that they get a payout
from any blocks found.
Hosted mining is weaker, but even then, it is possible for mining hosts to
provide proof that they performed mining. This proof would include the
identity of the mining pool. Even if the pool was run by the host, it
would still need to have the name embedded.
Mining hosts might be able to figure out which of their customers actually
check the identity info, and then they could redirect the mining power of
those who generally don't check. If customers randomly ask for all of the
hashing power, right back to when they joined, then this becomes expensive.
Mining power directly owned by the pool is also immune to this effect.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20151220/feb0d395/attachment.html>;
Tier Nolan [ARCHIVE] /
npub1g6…sl5wd
2023-06-07 17:47:01
in reply to nevent1q…2552
Author Public Key
npub1g6vxlp4e0nyhs2dqxxcryztyf5f5hyuaq93nw4r87zcnv0sdsa0qqsl5wdPublished at
2023-06-07 17:47:01Event JSON
{
"id": "bb2b62864cc01db9fcb1157ba7d534bd3abd3394bc338597524f4ef398cade77",
"pubkey": "46986f86b97cc97829a031b03209644d134b939d0163375467f0b1363e0d875e",
"created_at": 1686160021,
"kind": 1,
"tags": [
[
"e",
"29b7621364af8f1f611558ed33ab90fd2b7daff5f620fc02b9ca3019fe1123e5",
"",
"root"
],
[
"e",
"2375291b6e108bbd330576a78a1a6ca0a95ab6eba8e62be1c8aaf5b2ad5df443",
"",
"reply"
],
[
"p",
"b68afd106d166cdb4d51d8e16c275c09e0a49020fb6f311509c56b6743b37a84"
]
],
"content": "📅 Original date posted:2015-12-20\n📝 Original message:On Sun, Dec 20, 2015 at 5:12 AM, Emin Gün Sirer \u003c\nbitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org\u003e wrote:\n\n\u003e An attacker pool (A) can take a certain portion of its hashpower,\n\u003e use it to mine on behalf of victim pool (B), furnish partial proofs of work\n\u003e to B, but discard any full blocks it discovers.\n\u003e\n\nI wonder if part of the problem here is that there is no pool identity\nlinked to mining pools.\n\nIf the mining protocols were altered so that miners had to indicate their\nidentity, then a pool couldn't forward hashing power to their victim.\n\nIf the various mining protocols were updated, they could allow checking\nthat the work has the domain name of the pool included. Pools would have\nto include their domain name in the block header.\n\nA pool which provides this service is publicly saying that they will not\nuse the block withholding attack. Any two pools which are doing it cannot\nattack each other (since they have different domain names). This creates\nan incentive for pools to start supporting the feature.\n\nOwners of hashing power also have an incentive to operate with pools which\noffer this identity. It means that they can ensure that they get a payout\nfrom any blocks found.\n\nHosted mining is weaker, but even then, it is possible for mining hosts to\nprovide proof that they performed mining. This proof would include the\nidentity of the mining pool. Even if the pool was run by the host, it\nwould still need to have the name embedded.\n\nMining hosts might be able to figure out which of their customers actually\ncheck the identity info, and then they could redirect the mining power of\nthose who generally don't check. If customers randomly ask for all of the\nhashing power, right back to when they joined, then this becomes expensive.\n\nMining power directly owned by the pool is also immune to this effect.\n-------------- next part --------------\nAn HTML attachment was scrubbed...\nURL: \u003chttp://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20151220/feb0d395/attachment.html\u003e",
"sig": "993f060175108b3ea6a7f9b86898758b8e9737e77c87daa47162058e798541fa3480f8b7071031da24ccc32ed20a048cf494fab519de62ace2406d106cd204c2"
}