Luv Khemani [ARCHIVE] / is on Nostr

⚠️ This account is not associated with a real person. It's an archival account for mailing list messages.
🗓️ Active from 2015-08-03 to 2017-04-06
💬 Posted a total of 9 messages
📚 Participated in the following categories: bitcoin-dev
🔇 Please do not DM this user as it's used for archive purposes only.

Last Notes

2023-06-07 17:59:25

- reply

📅 Original date posted:2017-04-06
📝 Original message:Just to add on to the ethical issue of blocking this.
If blocking the covert form of ASICBOOST is seen as unethical, then the same can be said about libsecp256k1, various client optimisations, Compactblocks.
All of which seek to reduce the efficacy of large miners and selfish mining.
I also find it very ironic that the author of the Selfish Mining paper who rang alarm bells about miner centralisation in 2013 is now opposing attempts to reduce miner centralisation.
________________________________
From: bitcoin-dev-bounces at lists.linuxfoundation.org <bitcoin-dev-bounces at lists.linuxfoundation.org> on behalf of Luv Khemani via bitcoin-dev <bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org>
Sent: Thursday, April 6, 2017 8:02 PM
To: Gregory Maxwell; Bitcoin Protocol Discussion
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] BIP proposal: Inhibiting a covert attack on the Bitcoin POW function
Hi Greg
Great work in discovering this!
> A month ago I was explaining the attack on Bitcoin's SHA2 hashcash which
is exploited by ASICBOOST and the various steps which could be used to
block it in the network if it became a problem.
Could you elaborate on why you consider ASICBOOST to be an attack? Attack here implies ill-intent by the practitioner towards the network as a primary motivating factor.
Personally, i see this as a miner acting in his self-interest and had i been a miner and knew about the covert method, i would use it too.
So while i'm no fan of Bitmain/Jihan, i do not condone the vilification he has received over the use of ASICBOOST to gain an edge.
I know i'm griping over semantics, but in the current political climate, they can be amplified by some to cause more drama than is healthy.
Other thoughts:
Several people have commented that blocking the use of this covert technique is unethical or "wrong".
To quote Emin:
>Taking action to block this is similar to the government taking measures to block Elon Musk's more efficient electric cars. Specifically prosecuting a chosen miner, in the current political climate, would send a terrible message of absolute centralization in the hands of one particular developer group, and it would severely damage Bitcoin mining and the coin's security.
This is a poor analogy and extremely misleading as the the basis for blocking has nothing to do with efficiency and more to do with the following:
1) Blocking upgrades to the protocol that are deemed by the vast majority of the technical community/Bitcoin Businesses as being the best way forward
2) An advantage by a miner/group, especially one with majority hashrate is a threat to decentralisation and security of the network and it is entirely justifiable for devs to nullify such an advantage.
You can see it as an arms race where miners are always finding ways to gain an edge and devs trying to discover such edges and nullify them to level the playing field.
This is how the game works and it should not be viewed in a political angle or taken personally by either party. Miners are acting in their self-interest and Devs are trying to secure the network and increase decentralisation.
Both are doing their job.
Just by revealing the info, you have effectively ensured the nullification of any edge enjoyed by miners using the covert technique in the medium to long term.
Either miners not using the technique will all start signalling for SegWit to nullify their competitors edge or they will procure hardware which has the edge.
Given the threat to decentralisation, i also believe UASF will gain more momentum as users seek to protect the network from further miner centralisation.
________________________________
From: bitcoin-dev-bounces at lists.linuxfoundation.org <bitcoin-dev-bounces at lists.linuxfoundation.org> on behalf of Gregory Maxwell via bitcoin-dev <bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org>
Sent: Thursday, April 6, 2017 5:37 AM
To: Bitcoin Dev
Subject: [bitcoin-dev] BIP proposal: Inhibiting a covert attack on the Bitcoin POW function
A month ago I was explaining the attack on Bitcoin's SHA2 hashcash which
is exploited by ASICBOOST and the various steps which could be used to
block it in the network if it became a problem.
While most discussion of ASICBOOST has focused on the overt method
of implementing it, there also exists a covert method for using it.
As I explained one of the approaches to inhibit covert ASICBOOST I
realized that my words were pretty much also describing the SegWit
commitment structure.
The authors of the SegWit proposal made a specific effort to not be
incompatible with any mining system and, in particular, changed the
design at one point to accommodate mining chips with forced payout
addresses.
Had there been awareness of exploitation of this attack an effort
would have been made to avoid incompatibility-- simply to separate
concerns. But the best methods of implementing the covert attack
are significantly incompatible with virtually any method of
extending Bitcoin's transaction capabilities; with the notable
exception of extension blocks (which have their own problems).
An incompatibility would go a long way to explain some of the
more inexplicable behavior from some parties in the mining
ecosystem so I began looking for supporting evidence.
Reverse engineering of a particular mining chip has demonstrated
conclusively that ASICBOOST has been implemented
in hardware.
On that basis, I offer the following BIP draft for discussion.
This proposal does not prevent the attack in general, but only
inhibits covert forms of it which are incompatible with
improvements to the Bitcoin protocol.
I hope that even those of us who would strongly prefer that
ASICBOOST be blocked completely can come together to support
a protective measure that separates concerns by inhibiting
the covert use of it that potentially blocks protocol improvements.
The specific activation height is something I currently don't have
a strong opinion, so I've left it unspecified for the moment.
<pre>
BIP: TBD
Layer: Consensus
Title: Inhibiting a covert attack on the Bitcoin POW function
Author: Greg Maxwell <greg at xiph.org>
Status: Draft
Type: Standards Track
Created: 2016-04-05
License: PD
</pre>
==Abstract==
This proposal inhibits the covert exploitation of a known
vulnerability in Bitcoin Proof of Work function.
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
document are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119.
==Motivation==
Due to a design oversight the Bitcoin proof of work function has a potential
attack which can allow an attacking miner to save up-to 30% of their energy
costs (though closer to 20% is more likely due to implementation overheads).
Timo Hanke and Sergio Demian Lerner claim to hold a patent on this attack,
which they have so far not licensed for free and open use by the public.
They have been marketing their patent licenses under the trade-name
ASICBOOST. The document takes no position on the validity or enforceability
of the patent.
There are two major ways of exploiting the underlying vulnerability: One
obvious way which is highly detectable and is not in use on the network
today and a covert way which has significant interaction and potential
interference with the Bitcoin protocol. The covert mechanism is not
easily detected except through its interference with the protocol.
In particular, the protocol interactions of the covert method can block the
implementation of virtuous improvements such as segregated witness.
Exploitation of this vulnerability could result in payoff of as much as
$100 million USD per year at the time this was written (Assuming at
50% hash-power miner was gaining a 30% power advantage and that mining
was otherwise at profit equilibrium). This could have a phenomenal
centralizing effect by pushing mining out of profitability for all
other participants, and the income from secretly using this
optimization could be abused to significantly distort the Bitcoin
ecosystem in order to preserve the advantage.
Reverse engineering of a mining ASIC from a major manufacture has
revealed that it contains an undocumented, undisclosed ability
to make use of this attack. (The parties claiming to hold a
patent on this technique were completely unaware of this use.)
On the above basis the potential for covert exploitation of this
vulnerability and the resulting inequality in the mining process
and interference with useful improvements presents a clear and
present danger to the Bitcoin system which requires a response.
==Background==
The general idea of this attack is that SHA2-256 is a merkle damgard hash
function which consumes 64 bytes of data at a time.
The Bitcoin mining process repeatedly hashes an 80-byte 'block header' while
incriminating a 32-bit nonce which is at the end of this header data. This
means that the processing of the header involves two runs of the compression
function run-- one that consumes the first 64 bytes of the header and a
second which processes the remaining 16 bytes and padding.
The initial 'message expansion' operations in each step of the SHA2-256
function operate exclusively on that step's 64-bytes of input with no
influence from prior data that entered the hash.
Because of this if a miner is able to prepare a block header with
multiple distinct first 64-byte chunks but identical 16-byte
second chunks they can reuse the computation of the initial
expansion for multiple trials. This reduces power consumption.
There are two broad ways of making use of this attack. The obvious
way is to try candidates with different version numbers. Beyond
upsetting the soft-fork detection logic in Bitcoin nodes this has
little negative effect but it is highly conspicuous and easily
blocked.
The other method is based on the fact that the merkle root
committing to the transactions is contained in the first 64-bytes
except for the last 4 bytes of it. If the miner finds multiple
candidate root values which have the same final 32-bit then they
can use the attack.
To find multiple roots with the same trailing 32-bits the miner can
use efficient collision finding mechanism which will find a match
with as little as 2^16 candidate roots expected, 2^24 operations to
find a 4-way hit, though low memory approaches require more
computation.
An obvious way to generate different candidates is to grind the
coinbase extra-nonce but for non-empty blocks each attempt will
require 13 or so additional sha2 runs which is very inefficient.
This inefficiency can be avoided by computing a sqrt number of
candidates of the left side of the hash tree (e.g. using extra
nonce grinding) then an additional sqrt number of candidates of
the right side of the tree using transaction permutation or
substitution of a small number of transactions. All combinations
of the left and right side are then combined with only a single
hashing operation virtually eliminating all tree related
overhead.
With this final optimization finding a 4-way collision with a
moderate amount of memory requires ~2^24 hashing operations
instead of the >2^28 operations that would be require for
extra-nonce grinding which would substantially erode the
benefit of the attack.
It is this final optimization which this proposal blocks.
==New consensus rule==
Beginning block X and until block Y the coinbase transaction of
each block MUST either contain a BIP-141 segwit commitment or a
correct WTXID commitment with ID 0xaa21a9ef.
(See BIP-141 "Commitment structure" for details)
Existing segwit using miners are automatically compatible with
this proposal. Non-segwit miners can become compatible by simply
including an additional output matching a default commitment
value returned as part of getblocktemplate.
Miners SHOULD NOT automatically discontinue the commitment
at the expiration height.
==Discussion==
The commitment in the left side of the tree to all transactions
in the right side completely prevents the final sqrt speedup.
A stronger inhibition of the covert attack in the form of
requiring the least significant bits of the block timestamp
to be equal to a hash of the first 64-bytes of the header. This
would increase the collision space from 32 to 40 or more bits.
The root value could be required to meet a specific hash prefix
requirement in order to increase the computational work required
to try candidate roots. These change would be more disruptive and
there is no reason to believe that it is currently necessary.
The proposed rule automatically sunsets. If it is no longer needed
due to the introduction of stronger rules or the acceptance of the
version-grinding form then there would be no reason to continue
with this requirement. If it is still useful at the expiration
time the rule can simply be extended with a new softfork that
sets longer date ranges.
This sun-setting avoids the accumulation of technical debt due
to retaining enforcement of this rule when it is no longer needed
without requiring a hard fork to remove it.
== Overt attack ==
The non-covert form can be trivially blocked by requiring that
the header version match the coinbase transaction version.
This proposal does not include this block because this method
may become generally available without restriction in the future,
does not generally interfere with improvements in the protocol,
and because it is so easily detected that it could be blocked if
it becomes an issue in the future.
==Backward compatibility==
==Implementation==
==Acknowledgments==
==Copyright==
This document is placed in the public domain.
_______________________________________________
bitcoin-dev mailing list
bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
bitcoin-dev -- Bitcoin Protocol Discussion - Linux Foundation<https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev>
lists.linuxfoundation.org
Bitcoin development and protocol discussion. This list is lightly moderated. - No offensive posts, no personal attacks. - Posts must concern development of bitcoin ...
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20170406/55036fce/attachment-0001.html>

2023-06-07 17:59:23

- reply

📅 Original date posted:2017-04-06
📝 Original message:Hi Greg
Great work in discovering this!
> A month ago I was explaining the attack on Bitcoin's SHA2 hashcash which
is exploited by ASICBOOST and the various steps which could be used to
block it in the network if it became a problem.
Could you elaborate on why you consider ASICBOOST to be an attack? Attack here implies ill-intent by the practitioner towards the network as a primary motivating factor.
Personally, i see this as a miner acting in his self-interest and had i been a miner and knew about the covert method, i would use it too.
So while i'm no fan of Bitmain/Jihan, i do not condone the vilification he has received over the use of ASICBOOST to gain an edge.
I know i'm griping over semantics, but in the current political climate, they can be amplified by some to cause more drama than is healthy.
Other thoughts:
Several people have commented that blocking the use of this covert technique is unethical or "wrong".
To quote Emin:
>Taking action to block this is similar to the government taking measures to block Elon Musk's more efficient electric cars. Specifically prosecuting a chosen miner, in the current political climate, would send a terrible message of absolute centralization in the hands of one particular developer group, and it would severely damage Bitcoin mining and the coin's security.
This is a poor analogy and extremely misleading as the the basis for blocking has nothing to do with efficiency and more to do with the following:
1) Blocking upgrades to the protocol that are deemed by the vast majority of the technical community/Bitcoin Businesses as being the best way forward
2) An advantage by a miner/group, especially one with majority hashrate is a threat to decentralisation and security of the network and it is entirely justifiable for devs to nullify such an advantage.
You can see it as an arms race where miners are always finding ways to gain an edge and devs trying to discover such edges and nullify them to level the playing field.
This is how the game works and it should not be viewed in a political angle or taken personally by either party. Miners are acting in their self-interest and Devs are trying to secure the network and increase decentralisation.
Both are doing their job.
Just by revealing the info, you have effectively ensured the nullification of any edge enjoyed by miners using the covert technique in the medium to long term.
Either miners not using the technique will all start signalling for SegWit to nullify their competitors edge or they will procure hardware which has the edge.
Given the threat to decentralisation, i also believe UASF will gain more momentum as users seek to protect the network from further miner centralisation.
________________________________
From: bitcoin-dev-bounces at lists.linuxfoundation.org <bitcoin-dev-bounces at lists.linuxfoundation.org> on behalf of Gregory Maxwell via bitcoin-dev <bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org>
Sent: Thursday, April 6, 2017 5:37 AM
To: Bitcoin Dev
Subject: [bitcoin-dev] BIP proposal: Inhibiting a covert attack on the Bitcoin POW function
A month ago I was explaining the attack on Bitcoin's SHA2 hashcash which
is exploited by ASICBOOST and the various steps which could be used to
block it in the network if it became a problem.
While most discussion of ASICBOOST has focused on the overt method
of implementing it, there also exists a covert method for using it.
As I explained one of the approaches to inhibit covert ASICBOOST I
realized that my words were pretty much also describing the SegWit
commitment structure.
The authors of the SegWit proposal made a specific effort to not be
incompatible with any mining system and, in particular, changed the
design at one point to accommodate mining chips with forced payout
addresses.
Had there been awareness of exploitation of this attack an effort
would have been made to avoid incompatibility-- simply to separate
concerns. But the best methods of implementing the covert attack
are significantly incompatible with virtually any method of
extending Bitcoin's transaction capabilities; with the notable
exception of extension blocks (which have their own problems).
An incompatibility would go a long way to explain some of the
more inexplicable behavior from some parties in the mining
ecosystem so I began looking for supporting evidence.
Reverse engineering of a particular mining chip has demonstrated
conclusively that ASICBOOST has been implemented
in hardware.
On that basis, I offer the following BIP draft for discussion.
This proposal does not prevent the attack in general, but only
inhibits covert forms of it which are incompatible with
improvements to the Bitcoin protocol.
I hope that even those of us who would strongly prefer that
ASICBOOST be blocked completely can come together to support
a protective measure that separates concerns by inhibiting
the covert use of it that potentially blocks protocol improvements.
The specific activation height is something I currently don't have
a strong opinion, so I've left it unspecified for the moment.
<pre>
BIP: TBD
Layer: Consensus
Title: Inhibiting a covert attack on the Bitcoin POW function
Author: Greg Maxwell <greg at xiph.org>
Status: Draft
Type: Standards Track
Created: 2016-04-05
License: PD
</pre>
==Abstract==
This proposal inhibits the covert exploitation of a known
vulnerability in Bitcoin Proof of Work function.
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
document are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119.
==Motivation==
Due to a design oversight the Bitcoin proof of work function has a potential
attack which can allow an attacking miner to save up-to 30% of their energy
costs (though closer to 20% is more likely due to implementation overheads).
Timo Hanke and Sergio Demian Lerner claim to hold a patent on this attack,
which they have so far not licensed for free and open use by the public.
They have been marketing their patent licenses under the trade-name
ASICBOOST. The document takes no position on the validity or enforceability
of the patent.
There are two major ways of exploiting the underlying vulnerability: One
obvious way which is highly detectable and is not in use on the network
today and a covert way which has significant interaction and potential
interference with the Bitcoin protocol. The covert mechanism is not
easily detected except through its interference with the protocol.
In particular, the protocol interactions of the covert method can block the
implementation of virtuous improvements such as segregated witness.
Exploitation of this vulnerability could result in payoff of as much as
$100 million USD per year at the time this was written (Assuming at
50% hash-power miner was gaining a 30% power advantage and that mining
was otherwise at profit equilibrium). This could have a phenomenal
centralizing effect by pushing mining out of profitability for all
other participants, and the income from secretly using this
optimization could be abused to significantly distort the Bitcoin
ecosystem in order to preserve the advantage.
Reverse engineering of a mining ASIC from a major manufacture has
revealed that it contains an undocumented, undisclosed ability
to make use of this attack. (The parties claiming to hold a
patent on this technique were completely unaware of this use.)
On the above basis the potential for covert exploitation of this
vulnerability and the resulting inequality in the mining process
and interference with useful improvements presents a clear and
present danger to the Bitcoin system which requires a response.
==Background==
The general idea of this attack is that SHA2-256 is a merkle damgard hash
function which consumes 64 bytes of data at a time.
The Bitcoin mining process repeatedly hashes an 80-byte 'block header' while
incriminating a 32-bit nonce which is at the end of this header data. This
means that the processing of the header involves two runs of the compression
function run-- one that consumes the first 64 bytes of the header and a
second which processes the remaining 16 bytes and padding.
The initial 'message expansion' operations in each step of the SHA2-256
function operate exclusively on that step's 64-bytes of input with no
influence from prior data that entered the hash.
Because of this if a miner is able to prepare a block header with
multiple distinct first 64-byte chunks but identical 16-byte
second chunks they can reuse the computation of the initial
expansion for multiple trials. This reduces power consumption.
There are two broad ways of making use of this attack. The obvious
way is to try candidates with different version numbers. Beyond
upsetting the soft-fork detection logic in Bitcoin nodes this has
little negative effect but it is highly conspicuous and easily
blocked.
The other method is based on the fact that the merkle root
committing to the transactions is contained in the first 64-bytes
except for the last 4 bytes of it. If the miner finds multiple
candidate root values which have the same final 32-bit then they
can use the attack.
To find multiple roots with the same trailing 32-bits the miner can
use efficient collision finding mechanism which will find a match
with as little as 2^16 candidate roots expected, 2^24 operations to
find a 4-way hit, though low memory approaches require more
computation.
An obvious way to generate different candidates is to grind the
coinbase extra-nonce but for non-empty blocks each attempt will
require 13 or so additional sha2 runs which is very inefficient.
This inefficiency can be avoided by computing a sqrt number of
candidates of the left side of the hash tree (e.g. using extra
nonce grinding) then an additional sqrt number of candidates of
the right side of the tree using transaction permutation or
substitution of a small number of transactions. All combinations
of the left and right side are then combined with only a single
hashing operation virtually eliminating all tree related
overhead.
With this final optimization finding a 4-way collision with a
moderate amount of memory requires ~2^24 hashing operations
instead of the >2^28 operations that would be require for
extra-nonce grinding which would substantially erode the
benefit of the attack.
It is this final optimization which this proposal blocks.
==New consensus rule==
Beginning block X and until block Y the coinbase transaction of
each block MUST either contain a BIP-141 segwit commitment or a
correct WTXID commitment with ID 0xaa21a9ef.
(See BIP-141 "Commitment structure" for details)
Existing segwit using miners are automatically compatible with
this proposal. Non-segwit miners can become compatible by simply
including an additional output matching a default commitment
value returned as part of getblocktemplate.
Miners SHOULD NOT automatically discontinue the commitment
at the expiration height.
==Discussion==
The commitment in the left side of the tree to all transactions
in the right side completely prevents the final sqrt speedup.
A stronger inhibition of the covert attack in the form of
requiring the least significant bits of the block timestamp
to be equal to a hash of the first 64-bytes of the header. This
would increase the collision space from 32 to 40 or more bits.
The root value could be required to meet a specific hash prefix
requirement in order to increase the computational work required
to try candidate roots. These change would be more disruptive and
there is no reason to believe that it is currently necessary.
The proposed rule automatically sunsets. If it is no longer needed
due to the introduction of stronger rules or the acceptance of the
version-grinding form then there would be no reason to continue
with this requirement. If it is still useful at the expiration
time the rule can simply be extended with a new softfork that
sets longer date ranges.
This sun-setting avoids the accumulation of technical debt due
to retaining enforcement of this rule when it is no longer needed
without requiring a hard fork to remove it.
== Overt attack ==
The non-covert form can be trivially blocked by requiring that
the header version match the coinbase transaction version.
This proposal does not include this block because this method
may become generally available without restriction in the future,
does not generally interfere with improvements in the protocol,
and because it is so easily detected that it could be blocked if
it becomes an issue in the future.
==Backward compatibility==
==Implementation==
==Acknowledgments==
==Copyright==
This document is placed in the public domain.
_______________________________________________
bitcoin-dev mailing list
bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
bitcoin-dev -- Bitcoin Protocol Discussion - Linux Foundation<https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev>
lists.linuxfoundation.org
Bitcoin development and protocol discussion. This list is lightly moderated. - No offensive posts, no personal attacks. - Posts must concern development of bitcoin ...
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20170406/bd8d70c4/attachment-0001.html>

2023-06-07 17:58:09

- reply

📅 Original date posted:2017-03-28
📝 Original message:Hi Juan
> I tend to believe more in Moore’s law, Butters' Law of Photonics and Kryder’s Law all has been verified for many years and support that 32 MB in 2020 are possible and equals or less than 1 MB in 2010.
Protocol development, especially one in control of people's money cannot be based on beliefs. Do you have actual data to show significant increases in desktop CPU, memory and bandwidth?
All empirical evidence points to the opposite.
Intel has been struggling to eek out 5-10% gains for each generation of its CPUs. The growth of the total blockchain size at 1MB alone is much faster than this.
CPU Core counts have also been stagnant for a decade.
Disk Space growth has also been slowing and with the trend towards SSDs, available disk space in a typical PC has turned negative sharply.
Regards
Luv
________________________________
From: bitcoin-dev-bounces at lists.linuxfoundation.org <bitcoin-dev-bounces at lists.linuxfoundation.org> on behalf of Juan Garavaglia via bitcoin-dev <bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org>
Sent: Wednesday, March 29, 2017 6:36 AM
To: Alphonse Pace; Wang Chun
Cc: Bitcoin Protocol Discussion
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Hard fork proposal from last week's meeting
Alphonse,
Even when several of the experts involved in the document you refer has my respect and admiration, I do not agree with some of their conclusions some of their estimations are not accurate other changed like Bootstrap Time, Cost per Confirmed Transaction they consider a network of 450,000,00 GH and today is 3.594.236.966 GH, the energy consumption per GH is old, the cost of electricity is wrong even when the document was made and is hard to find any parameter used that is valid for an analysis today.
Again with all respect to the experts involved in that analysis is not valid today.
I tend to believe more in Moore’s law, Butters' Law of Photonics and Kryder’s Law all has been verified for many years and support that 32 MB in 2020 are possible and equals or less than 1 MB in 2010.
Again may be is not possible Johnson Lau and LukeJr invested a significant amount of time investigating ways to do a safe HF, and may be not possible to do a safe HF today but from processing power, bandwidth and storage is totally valid and Wang Chung proposal has solid grounds.
Regards
Juan
From: Alphonse Pace [mailto:alp.bitcoin at gmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, March 28, 2017 2:53 PM
To: Juan Garavaglia <jg at 112bit.com>; Wang Chun <1240902 at gmail.com>
Cc: Bitcoin Protocol Discussion <bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org>
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Hard fork proposal from last week's meeting
Juan,
I suggest you take a look at this paper: http://fc16.ifca.ai/bitcoin/papers/CDE+16.pdf It may help you form opinions based in science rather than what appears to be nothing more than a hunch. It shows that even 4MB is unsafe. SegWit provides up to this limit.
On Scaling Decentralized Blockchains<http://fc16.ifca.ai/bitcoin/papers/CDE+16.pdf>
fc16.ifca.ai
On Scaling Decentralized Blockchains (A Position Paper) Kyle Croman 0 ;1, Christian Decker 4, Ittay Eyal , Adem Efe Gencer , Ari Juels 0 ;2, Ahmed Kosba 0 ;3, Andrew ...
8MB is most definitely not safe today.
Whether it is unsafe or impossible is the topic, since Wang Chun proposed making the block size limit 32MiB.
Wang Chun,
Can you specify what meeting you are talking about? You seem to have not replied on that point. Who were the participants and what was the purpose of this meeting?
-Alphonse
On Tue, Mar 28, 2017 at 12:33 PM, Juan Garavaglia <jg at 112bit.com<mailto:jg at 112bit.com>> wrote:
Alphonse,
In my opinion if 1MB limit was ok in 2010, 8MB limit is ok on 2016 and 32MB limit valid in next halving, from network, storage and CPU perspective or 1MB was too high in 2010 what is possible or 1MB is to low today.
If is unsafe or impossible to raise the blocksize is a different topic.
Regards
Juan
From: bitcoin-dev-bounces at lists.linuxfoundation.org<mailto:bitcoin-dev-bounces at lists.linuxfoundation.org> [mailto:bitcoin-dev-bounces at lists.linuxfoundation.org<mailto:bitcoin-dev-bounces at lists.linuxfoundation.org>] On Behalf Of Alphonse Pace via bitcoin-dev
Sent: Tuesday, March 28, 2017 2:24 PM
To: Wang Chun <1240902 at gmail.com<mailto:1240902 at gmail.com>>; Bitcoin Protocol Discussion <bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org<mailto:bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org>>
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Hard fork proposal from last week's meeting
What meeting are you referring to? Who were the participants?
Removing the limit but relying on the p2p protocol is not really a true 32MiB limit, but a limit of whatever transport methods provide. This can lead to differing consensus if alternative layers for relaying are used. What you seem to be asking for is an unbound block size (or at least determined by whatever miners produce). This has the possibility (and even likelihood) of removing many participants from the network, including many small miners.
32MB in less than 3 years also appears to be far beyond limits of safety which are known to exist far sooner, and we cannot expect hardware and networking layers to improve by those amounts in that time.
It also seems like it would be much better to wait until SegWit activates in order to truly measure the effects on the network from this increased capacity before committing to any additional increases.
-Alphonse
On Tue, Mar 28, 2017 at 11:59 AM, Wang Chun via bitcoin-dev <bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org<mailto:bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org>> wrote:
I've proposed this hard fork approach last year in Hong Kong Consensus
but immediately rejected by coredevs at that meeting, after more than
one year it seems that lots of people haven't heard of it. So I would
post this here again for comment.
The basic idea is, as many of us agree, hard fork is risky and should
be well prepared. We need a long time to deploy it.
Despite spam tx on the network, the block capacity is approaching its
limit, and we must think ahead. Shall we code a patch right now, to
remove the block size limit of 1MB, but not activate it until far in
the future. I would propose to remove the 1MB limit at the next block
halving in spring 2020, only limit the block size to 32MiB which is
the maximum size the current p2p protocol allows. This patch must be
in the immediate next release of Bitcoin Core.
With this patch in core's next release, Bitcoin works just as before,
no fork will ever occur, until spring 2020. But everyone knows there
will be a fork scheduled. Third party services, libraries, wallets and
exchanges will have enough time to prepare for it over the next three
years.
We don't yet have an agreement on how to increase the block size
limit. There have been many proposals over the past years, like
BIP100, 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 109, 148, 248, BU, and so
on. These hard fork proposals, with this patch already in Core's
release, they all become soft fork. We'll have enough time to discuss
all these proposals and decide which one to go. Take an example, if we
choose to fork to only 2MB, since 32MiB already scheduled, reduce it
from 32MiB to 2MB will be a soft fork.
Anyway, we must code something right now, before it becomes too late.
_______________________________________________
bitcoin-dev mailing list
bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org<mailto:bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org>
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20170329/e38abd87/attachment-0001.html>

2023-06-07 17:36:15

- reply

📅 Original date posted:2015-08-17
📝 Original message:Hi all,
I previously mentioned in a post that i believe that technically nodes are capable of handling blocks an order of magnitude larger than the current blocksize limit, the only missing thing was an incentive to run them. I have been monitoring the blockchain for the past couple of weeks and am seeing that even miners who have all the incentives are for whatever reason struggling to download and validate much smaller blocks.
The data actually paints a very grim picture of the current bandwidth/validating capacity of the global mining network.
See the following empty blocks mined despite a non-trivial elapsed time from the previous block just from the past couple of days alone (Data from insight.bitpay.com):
EmptyBlock /Time since previous block/ Size of previous block(bytes)/Mined by====================================================370165 29s 720784 Antpool370160 31s 50129 BTCChinaPool370076 49s 469988 F2Pool370059 34s 110994 Antpool370057 73s 131603 Antpool
We have preceding blocks as small as 50KB with 30s passing and the miner continues to mine empty blocks via SPV mining.
The most glaring case is Block 370057 where despite 73s elapsing and the preceding block being a mere 131KB, the miner is unable to download/validate fast enough to include transactions in his block. Unless ofcourse the miner is mining empty blocks on purpose, which does not make sense as all of these pools do mine blocks with transactions when the elapsed time is greater.
This is a cause for great concern, because if miners are SPV mining for a whole minute for <750KB blocks, at 8MB blocks, the network will just fall apart as a significant portion of the hashing power SPV mines throughout. All a single malicious miner has to do is mine an invalid block on purpose, let these pools SPV mine on top of them while it mines a valid block free of their competition. Yes, these pools deserve to lose money in that event, but the impact of reorgs and many block orphans for anyone not running a full node could be disastrous, especially more so in the XT world where Mike wants everyone to be running SPV nodes. I simply don't see the XT fork having any chance of surviving if SPV nodes are unreliable.
And if these pools go out of business, it will lead to even more mining centralization which is already too centralized today.
Can anyone representing these pools comment on why this is happening? Are these pools on Matt's relay network?
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20150817/9304b47e/attachment.html>

2023-06-07 15:47:51

- reply