Adam Back [ARCHIVE] on Nostr: 📅 Original date posted:2013-05-11 📝 Original message:I didnt quite understand ...

📅 Original date posted:2013-05-11
📝 Original message:I didnt quite understand the writeup and the references were ambiguous.

But if you are talking about bitcoin/hashcash merged mining for email: it is
something I think should possible. Of course for email the scale means
bitcoin style flood-fill and direct tiny payments are completely out of the
question, thats why hashcash itself has no communication overhead other than
a header in the mail - its only scalability limit is email itself.

Rivest's PayWord for people who dont know the reference in this context is
the observation that for a low value micro-payment, you dont mind if you
only receive a payment 1 time in k so long as the expected payment is n
after receiving n (eg satoshi sized) payments. Eg like a penny tip jar so
long as your expected payment is correct long term (win as often as you
lose) you dont mind. And a fair 100% payout lottery can be fun of itself.

So let say each email client sends in an email header the head of the
bitcoin hash chain, it has seen via other emails, which can be offline
verified back to the genesis hash. Maybe some clients even have bitcoin
installed and ask the bitcoin client for the hash chain head. The client
also generates an address on setup, and sends its bitcoin address in a
header. If you send to a new address you dont know their address, so you
send to eg me (Adam;) as a default, or the bitcoin foundation, or an invalid
address to destroy the coin - the recipient assumes that is not the sender
as those address are in the client. A sender can under-contribute but makes
no gain. Under-contributing is fixable if desired (see under-contribute in
amortizable hashcash paper, but using PK decryption with recipients private
key x as its non-interactive b'=D(x,share).)

Then clients merge mine involving the recipients bitcoin address (or one of
the default addresses).

Even if the merged stamp provdes to be an orphan, even a very old one, its
valid in a hashcash anti-spam sense, meeting the same purpose as destroyed
coin.

Maybe one can put the bitcoin hash in DNS with a 5min TTL and have mail
clients read that to reduce scope for stale mining.

In this way one can merge mine bitcoin & hashcash to the benefit of the
recipient (or some beneficiary trusted not to be paying the proceeds to the
spammer). And in a way that scales to email scale, and does not involve
installing a bitcoin client in every client, nor mail server.

Adam

On Sat, May 11, 2013 at 12:53:42AM -0400, Peter Todd wrote:
>It has been previously(1) proposed that hashcash using the same PoW
>function as the Bitcoin block hashing algorithm be used to create
>hashcash whose value is denominated in Bitcoins. This poses two problems
>however: widespread use of such hashcash would harm overall network
>security and determining the value of the hashcash requires knowing the
>revenue miners can gain from transaction fees at a given block height -
>a non-computable function. However, with some modifications we can
>extend the idea to directly denominate the hashcash in Bitcoins at the
>cost of a small increase in proof size.
>
>Recall that the fundemental problem is the need to do some work to make
>digest D have value V, resulting in a proof that can be given to a third
>party. We want V to be denominated in Bitcoins, and we want the actual
>economic cost to create P to be as close as possible to the face-value
>V. Finally should computing P result in a valid Bitcoin block header,
>the creator of the proof should have a strong incentive to publish their
>header to the P2P network and extend the current best chain.
>
>
># Proof structure
>
>Lets look at the elements of the proof from the block header to the
>digest.
>
>
>## PoW Block Header
>
>This must be a valid block header. It is particularly important to
>ensure that the header can be linked to the actual blockchain, although
>the header itself does not need to be a part of the chain, and hence the
>block hash does not need to meet the difficulty requirements.
>
>
>### Previous Block Headers
>
>The proof may optionally include one or more previous block headers in
>the event that the PoW block header's previous block is an orphan.
>Unlike the PoW block header, these block headers MUST meet the
>difficulty requirements although an implementation MAY skip actually
>checking the difficulty if a difficulty retarget has not happened or the
>PoW is timestamped. (see below)
>
>
>## Partial Transaction and Merkle Path
>
>The partial transaction consists of a SHA256 midstate followed by
>exactly one transaction output. The merkle path to the PoW block header
>MUST prove the transaction was the coinbase transaction and not any
>other transaction.
>
>
>## Transaction Output
>
>The last transaction output must have a scriptPubKey consisting of
>exactly one PUSHDATA op which pushes H(D | N) to the stack. Its value,
>V', is the basis for determining the value of the proof of work. V' must
>satisfy V' < k*Vi(h) where Vi is the inflation reward for the PoW block
>height and k < 1 For a number of reasons, including making sure there
>are strong incentives for broadcasting succesful PoW solutions, the
>value of k should be chosen fairly conservatively; the author suggests k
>= 1/10 as a ballpark figure. Finally N is some fixed value specific to
>hashcash of this form to ensure the txout proof can-not be reused.
>
>Vi can also be calculated as the median of the last n "anyone-can-spend"
>outputs seen in coinbases when the value of the inflation reward falls
>low enough that using the inflation reward is impractical.
>
>
>## Timestamp
>
>If the proof-of-work is used after a difficulty retarget the PoW needs
>to be timestamped in the block chain with a merkle path leading to a
>valid block header. The difficulty used for calculating the value of the
>PoW then becomes the minimum of the difficulties of the PoW previous
>block and the timestamp.
>
>
># Determining the actual value of the PoW
>
>The proof proves that work was done to find a valid block header. That
>block header, had it met the difficulty threshhold, could have created a
>valid block worth at least the inflationary reward Vi(h) to the miner.
>
>The coinbase transaction output and merkle path shows that were such a
>block found, the miner would have then given away V' to whomever managed
>to create a transaction spending it when the coinbase matured. The
>coinbase takes 100 block to mature, so the chance of any one miner
>collecting it is proportional to the hashing power they control.(*)
>
>*) As with fidelity bonds we make the assumption that no party controls
>more than 50% of the hashing power - the assumption underlying Bitcoin's
>security anyway. If this assumption is proven incorrect or
>insufficiently strong, possibly due to a cartel of miners banding
>together to create low-cost PoW's, the output can use the provably
>unspendable/prunable OP_RETURN <digest> scriptPubKey instead with a
>non-zero value.
>
>With P(block hash, target), the expected probability of a valid PoW
>being found given the work required to create the block hash with the
>given difficulty target, we can finally calculate the value of the PoW
>in terms of expected cost: V = P(hash, target) * V'
>
>
># Pool implementation and 51% attack security
>
>Because doing the work required to create coinbase txout hashcash is
>sufficient to also create a valid block a pool can safely rent out
>hashing power to create hashcash of this form on demand without making
>it possible to rent large amounts of hashing power directly on short
>notice. (though some extensions to GetBlockTemplate for hashers
>verifying it may be required)
>
>Because the anyone-can-spend txout is the basis for the value of the
>hashcash the value remains computable even if transaction fees become a
>larger proportion of the block reward in the future.
>
>Unlike announce-commit sacrificies(2) proofs with very small values can
>be easily created; the pool operator can make a trade-off between the
>profit varience - remember that a block header with a valid PoW
>represents a loss - and latency by adjusting the proof of work
>difficulty and V'.
>
>As an aside, note how the mechanism of a anyone-can-spend txout in a
>coinbase can replace the announce portion of an announce-commit
>sacrifice; a coinbase transaction is the only case where a single merkle
>path proves that the transaction output was possible to spend in a
>subsequent block, but was not yet spent; also an argument for allowing
>coinbase transaction inputs.
>
>
># Application: Paying for additional flood-fill bandwidth
>
>Additional messaging applications built on top of the Bitcoin P2P
>network would be useful, yet there needs to be some general mechanism to
>make DoS attacks expensive enough that they are impractical. For
>instance a useful P2P network feature would be a mechanism to propose
>trust-free coin mixes transaction outputs, propose specific txout sets,
>and finally a mechanism to broadcast valid ANYONECANPAY signatures so
>the inputs and outputs can become a valid transaction. By separating the
>txout and signature broadcasts, who is paying for what output is made
>very difficult to determine.
>
>Of course such a mechanism will likely come under attack by those trying
>to combat anonymity. However with the coinbase txout hashcash mechanism
>those attackers are forced to either contribute to the security of the
>Bitcoin network or incur much higher opporuntity costs for conducting
>their attack than honest nodes pay. (remember how the choice of k = 10
>makes for a large ratio of maximum V' value to Vi(h) inflation reward)
>
>To reduce amortized proof size one proof can be used for multiple
>payments with Rivest PayWords and similar techniques.
>
>
># PowPay - Off-chain, anonymous, probabalistic payments
>
>By setting the special txout to a scriptPubKey spendable by the
>recipient we can prove to a third party that work was done that with
>probability P(hash,target) could have resulted in a txout spendable by
>them of value V' Thus the expected value of the payment is V = P(h,t)*V'
>The recipient needs to make the proof non-reusable, either by recording
>all proofs submitted, or by requiring a nonce in the scriptPubKey: (*)
>
> <nonce> DROP {additional ops}
>
>*) Note the implications for the IsStandardInput() test.
>
>Because the recipient has no way of knowing how the sender paid to have
>the hashing done on their behalf the source of the funds is unknown to
>them. Additionally the payment can be of any amount less than a full
>block reward, and the time varient between actual payments can be
>reduced to, in theory, as little as the block interval itself with 100%
>miner participation.
>
>
>## Maximum Payment amount
>
>Unlike coinbase txout hashcash the maximum value of a PowPay transaction
>is strictly limited by the inflation reward; the trick of calculating
>actual cost by prior sacrifices doesn't work because no honest sacrifice
>is involved. In any case it is desirable for the mechanism to account
>for a large percentage of total transaction value.
>
>The issue is that should a valid block be found either the miner must
>still have a strong incentive to broadcast that block that can be proven
>to the recipient, or the miner must not be the one who controls that
>decision.
>
>The latter option is possible by inverting the relationship: now the
>recipient constructs the block, and the sender simply arranges for a
>valid PoW to be created - essentially the recipient acts as a mining
>pool with an extremely high minimum work, and the sender provides
>hashing power. With the 1MB blocksize the cost to operate the full
>validating node required is low and attacks on block propagation are
>difficult to successfully pull off.
>
>
>### Supporting PowPay volume in excess of inflation reward + tx fees
>
>To support overall PowPay volumes that are in excess of the inflation
>reward and transaction fees the sender can provide the recipient with
>signed transaction inputs subject to the constraint that only blocks
>with PoW's generated by the sender can be used to spend them. For
>instance a nonce in a well-known place can be provided by the sender and
>included in a modified block header. By modifying the block hashing
>algorithm so that PoW-withholding is not possible - a significantly more
>serious problem in this application - the sender still is forced to send
>all potential solutions to the recipient, including possible winning
>ones. Provided that attacking block propagation is difficult the sender
>can't prevent the reciver from spending their transaction inputs.
>
>
>## Scalability
>
>PowPay can provide much greater scalability than Bitcoin itself, in
>terms of payments per second, however it is still limited in terms of
>actual fund transfers to recipients per second. A naive implementation
>would give a actual transfer every ten minutes maximum, and a highly
>sophisticated solution 7/second. (albeit probably requiring a hardfork
>to solve PoW withholding and/or use of third parties)
>
>At the same time the proofs required become large with an increased
>blocksize, and in the case of the inverted "recipient builds blocks"
>mode the recipients either incur large costs running full nodes, or
>greatly disrupt transaction flow for on-chain users by mining blocks
>with no transactions in them at all. (remember that a recipient who
>trusts someone else to construct the blocks for them is trusting that
>third-party to do so correctly)
>
>The latter is especially problematic because as the blocksize is
>increased a higher percentage of the cost of mining goes to the overhead
>required to run a validating node, rather than hashing, which has the
>perverse effect of decreasing the cost of mining blocks with no
>transactions in them at all. (or transactions that the miner knows have
>not been revealed to other miners)
>
>The analysis of this strange mixed bag of incentives is highly complex.
>
>
># Paying for mining
>
>TxOut HashCash and PayPow both require the sender to somehow get someone
>to mine on their behalf. The exact nature of these relationships will
>vary and are beyond the scope of this paper.
>
>
># Eliminating PoW withholding
>
>While the above examples have used economic incentives possible within
>the existing Bitcoin system a structural incentive is possible as well.
>A nonce N is chosen by the party paying for the PoW, such as a pool or
>PowPay recipient, and H(n) is included in the block header.(*) The PoW
>function is then modified to consider the PoW valid if the sum of the
>expected hashes required to find H(B) and H(B | n) exceeds the current
>difficulty target.
>
>*) Note how the block header can be extended, while remaining fairly compatible
>with existing ASIC mining hardware, by taking advantage of the fact that
>ASIC's use the SHA256 midstate at a starting point for their PoW
>calculations.(3)
>
>
>
>
>1) "Re: [Bitcoin-development] Discovery/addr packets (was: Service bits
>for pruned nodes)" - 2013-06-06 - Peter Todd <pete at petertodd.org> -
>bitcoin-development email list
>
>2) "Purchasing fidelity bonds by provably throwing away bitcoins" -
>https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=134827.0 - Peter Todd
>
>3) "Re: 32 vs 64-bit timestamp fields" - 2013-06-09 - John Dillon
><john.dillon892 at gmail.com> - bitcoin-development email list
>
>--
>'peter'[:-1]@petertodd.org
>0000000000000039e49118426bbe6739360d35116e920d6502dcacd8e51bc74c



>------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>Learn Graph Databases - Download FREE O'Reilly Book
>"Graph Databases" is the definitive new guide to graph databases and
>their applications. This 200-page book is written by three acclaimed
>leaders in the field. The early access version is available now.
>Download your free book today! http://p.sf.net/sfu/neotech_d2d_may

>_______________________________________________
>Bitcoin-development mailing list
>Bitcoin-development at lists.sourceforge.net
>https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development