Raystonn . [ARCHIVE] on Nostr: š
Original date posted:2015-06-08 š Original message:> Bitcoin is a global ...
š
Original date posted:2015-06-08
š Original message:> Bitcoin is a global consensus system - if you're (sic) bandwidth isn't
> sufficient to keep up you are not part of the consensus.
Bandwidth can be purchased. Infrastructure to handled increasing
transaction volume can be purchased. The very fees being paid by a spammer
will be used to increase the miners' ability to absorb even more fees. The
blocksize limit cannot respond in such a dynamic way to attacks. Miners
cannot buy a greater blocksize limit in response to a spammer that is paying
high fees to deny transaction confirmation to the rest of the planet in an
attempt to destroy the network. The blocksize limit is creating an attack
that can be maintained forever by any organization that can afford to fill
the blocks. This attack would get incredibly cheaper once the BTCUSD market
tanks in response to the lack of usability of the Bitcoin network, meaning
it would be a self-reinforcing attack that would likely destroy Bitcoin for
as long as an attacker wants to keep it up, or until you patch it to remove
the limit after-the-fact, which might be too little too late.
If this isn't fixed, I would expect to see it carried out at some point by
someone with a large short position in BTCUSD.
-----Original Message-----
From: Peter Todd
Sent: Monday, June 08, 2015 3:18 PM
To: Raystonn .
Cc: Patrick Mccorry (PGR) ; Bitcoin Dev
Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] New attack identified and potential
solution described: Dropped-transaction spam attack against the blocksize
limit
On Mon, Jun 08, 2015 at 03:01:34PM -0700, Raystonn . wrote:
> >There will always be a blocksize limit based on technological
> >considerations - the network has a finite bandwidth limit.
>
> A bandwidth limit is not the same as a blocksize limit. Bandwidth
> is unique to every individual. Miners in China have different
> bandwidth and connectivity than miners in the U.S., for example.
> But the block size limit is dictated for eveyone. They are not
> comparable.
Bitcoin is a global consensus system - if you're bandwidth isn't
sufficient to keep up you are not part of the consensus.
The blocksize limit *is* what determines the minimum bandwidth required
to stay in consensus.
> >Without a blocksize limit the attacker would just flood the
> >network until the bandwidth usage became so great that consensus
> >would fail, rendering Bitcoin both worthless, and insecure.
>
> No, with no blocksize limit, a spammer would would flood the network
> with transactions until they ran out of money. Meanwhile, everyone
> would jump on board trying to mine the blocks to collect the fees
> from the spammers. It could be one of the greatest transfers of
> wealth ever. Bitcoin infrastructure would build up to handle the
> required bandwidth, paid for by the very entity spamming the
> network. Bitcoin would flourish, growing wildly as long as the fees
> kept coming. This is antifragility at its best.
Again, in your scenario if the bandwidth consumed by those transactions
was sufficiently high, the network would collapse because consensus
would fail.
Why wouldn't that bandwidth be high enough to cause that collapse?
Because of the blocksize limit! (combined with an intelligent mempool
that increases the minimum fee/KB appropriately - we don't have that
yet)
> >The worst an attacker flooding the network with transactions with
> >a blocksize limit can do is raise costs, without harming security.
>
> No, at attacker flooding the network with transactions with a
> blocksize limit can keep their fees high enough that perhaps 1% of
> transactions coming from real end-users go through. At this point
> everyone would give up on Bitcoin as it would become completely
> unusable. The BTCUSD market would tank, making it even easier to
> pay the transaction fees to keep real transactions out of blocks, as
> it would continue to become cheaper and eventually cost-free to
> obtain the bitcoin fees through market purchase.
I already did the math for you on that: the maximum transaction fee
you'd see in that kind of attack is around $2.5 USD/tx. That definitely
is not high enough to make Bitcoin non-viable - I personally could
easily afford fees like that for about 90% of my transactions this year
by value, as I mainly use Bitcoin to get paid by my clients around the
world. In fact, just today O'Reilly paid $15 USD to send me a wire
transfer for expenses related to a conference I was invited too.
A much more realistic transaction flood scenario - one that didn't raise
serious questions about whether or not the attacker could afford to 51%
attack Bitcoin - would raise tx fees to something more like $0.25/tx
Published at
2023-06-07 15:37:09Event JSON
{
"id": "49793e2fec7c4b34d878870115f60f5ee16385caffe18015a712b48ce1d214a3",
"pubkey": "3e6baaf01f15cb9383746ee7c1a225175502acbc3234f3e42160ad71d011e092",
"created_at": 1686152229,
"kind": 1,
"tags": [
[
"e",
"bb822df33a2311a9ca89d4569d257edafe783786283eeb6a07e4d92a36b392d7",
"",
"root"
],
[
"e",
"6221c751dd7a0fdc999ceada074252cfbfe282fc25a926e6d2a48b976e3cb221",
"",
"reply"
],
[
"p",
"daa2fc676a25e3b5b45644540bcbd1e1168b111427cd0e3cf19c56194fb231aa"
]
],
"content": "š
Original date posted:2015-06-08\nš Original message:\u003e Bitcoin is a global consensus system - if you're (sic) bandwidth isn't \n\u003e sufficient to keep up you are not part of the consensus.\n\nBandwidth can be purchased. Infrastructure to handled increasing \ntransaction volume can be purchased. The very fees being paid by a spammer \nwill be used to increase the miners' ability to absorb even more fees. The \nblocksize limit cannot respond in such a dynamic way to attacks. Miners \ncannot buy a greater blocksize limit in response to a spammer that is paying \nhigh fees to deny transaction confirmation to the rest of the planet in an \nattempt to destroy the network. The blocksize limit is creating an attack \nthat can be maintained forever by any organization that can afford to fill \nthe blocks. This attack would get incredibly cheaper once the BTCUSD market \ntanks in response to the lack of usability of the Bitcoin network, meaning \nit would be a self-reinforcing attack that would likely destroy Bitcoin for \nas long as an attacker wants to keep it up, or until you patch it to remove \nthe limit after-the-fact, which might be too little too late.\n\nIf this isn't fixed, I would expect to see it carried out at some point by \nsomeone with a large short position in BTCUSD.\n\n-----Original Message----- \nFrom: Peter Todd\nSent: Monday, June 08, 2015 3:18 PM\nTo: Raystonn .\nCc: Patrick Mccorry (PGR) ; Bitcoin Dev\nSubject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] New attack identified and potential \nsolution described: Dropped-transaction spam attack against the blocksize \nlimit\n\nOn Mon, Jun 08, 2015 at 03:01:34PM -0700, Raystonn . wrote:\n\u003e \u003eThere will always be a blocksize limit based on technological\n\u003e \u003econsiderations - the network has a finite bandwidth limit.\n\u003e\n\u003e A bandwidth limit is not the same as a blocksize limit. Bandwidth\n\u003e is unique to every individual. Miners in China have different\n\u003e bandwidth and connectivity than miners in the U.S., for example.\n\u003e But the block size limit is dictated for eveyone. They are not\n\u003e comparable.\n\nBitcoin is a global consensus system - if you're bandwidth isn't\nsufficient to keep up you are not part of the consensus.\n\nThe blocksize limit *is* what determines the minimum bandwidth required\nto stay in consensus.\n\n\u003e \u003eWithout a blocksize limit the attacker would just flood the\n\u003e \u003enetwork until the bandwidth usage became so great that consensus\n\u003e \u003ewould fail, rendering Bitcoin both worthless, and insecure.\n\u003e\n\u003e No, with no blocksize limit, a spammer would would flood the network\n\u003e with transactions until they ran out of money. Meanwhile, everyone\n\u003e would jump on board trying to mine the blocks to collect the fees\n\u003e from the spammers. It could be one of the greatest transfers of\n\u003e wealth ever. Bitcoin infrastructure would build up to handle the\n\u003e required bandwidth, paid for by the very entity spamming the\n\u003e network. Bitcoin would flourish, growing wildly as long as the fees\n\u003e kept coming. This is antifragility at its best.\n\nAgain, in your scenario if the bandwidth consumed by those transactions\nwas sufficiently high, the network would collapse because consensus\nwould fail.\n\nWhy wouldn't that bandwidth be high enough to cause that collapse?\nBecause of the blocksize limit! (combined with an intelligent mempool\nthat increases the minimum fee/KB appropriately - we don't have that\nyet)\n\n\u003e \u003eThe worst an attacker flooding the network with transactions with\n\u003e \u003ea blocksize limit can do is raise costs, without harming security.\n\u003e\n\u003e No, at attacker flooding the network with transactions with a\n\u003e blocksize limit can keep their fees high enough that perhaps 1% of\n\u003e transactions coming from real end-users go through. At this point\n\u003e everyone would give up on Bitcoin as it would become completely\n\u003e unusable. The BTCUSD market would tank, making it even easier to\n\u003e pay the transaction fees to keep real transactions out of blocks, as\n\u003e it would continue to become cheaper and eventually cost-free to\n\u003e obtain the bitcoin fees through market purchase.\n\nI already did the math for you on that: the maximum transaction fee\nyou'd see in that kind of attack is around $2.5 USD/tx. That definitely\nis not high enough to make Bitcoin non-viable - I personally could\neasily afford fees like that for about 90% of my transactions this year\nby value, as I mainly use Bitcoin to get paid by my clients around the\nworld. In fact, just today O'Reilly paid $15 USD to send me a wire\ntransfer for expenses related to a conference I was invited too.\n\nA much more realistic transaction flood scenario - one that didn't raise\nserious questions about whether or not the attacker could afford to 51%\nattack Bitcoin - would raise tx fees to something more like $0.25/tx",
"sig": "ce26626d3dd874f484ce20fb3a3e9ae6b5965e4878504321fa6936e41ea62ac99927bf337e23e9f8bce0f0bf9e73472956d34869dd355558d335e596d06b1365"
}