{"type":"rich","version":"1.0","author_name":"npub1m230cem2yh3mtdzkg32qhj73uytgkyg5ylxsu083n3tpjnajxx4qqa2np2","author_url":"https://nostr.ae/npub1m230cem2yh3mtdzkg32qhj73uytgkyg5ylxsu083n3tpjnajxx4qqa2np2","provider_name":"njump","provider_url":"https://nostr.ae","html":"📅 Original date posted:2015-06-19\n📝 Original message:On Fri, Jun 19, 2015 at 08:20:52AM -0700, Adrian Macneil wrote:\n\u003e \u003e\n\u003e \u003e Unless you're sybil attacking the network and miners, consuming valuable\n\u003e \u003e resources and creating systemic risks of failure like we saw with\n\u003e \u003e Chainalysis, I don't see how you're getting \"very small\" double-spend\n\u003e \u003e probabilities.\n\u003e \u003e\n\u003e \n\u003e So connecting to many nodes just because we can and it's not technically\n\u003e prevented is bad for the network and creating systemic risks of failure,\n\nWell it is actually; that's why myself, Wladimir van der Laan, and\nGregory Maxwell all specifically¹ called Chainalysis's actions a sybil\nattack.\n\nThe Bitcoin P2P network is resilliant to failure when the chance of any\none node going down is uncorrelated with others. For instance if you\naccidentally introduced a bug in your nodes that failed to relay\ntransactions/blocks properly, you'd simultaneously be disrupting a large\nportion of the network all at once.\n\nHow many nodes is Coinbase connecting too? What software are they\nrunning? What subnets are they using? In particular, are they all on one\nsubnet or multiple?\n\n\u003e but relaying harmful double spend transactions just because you can and\n\u003e it's not technically prevented, is good for everyone?\n\nYou realise that Hearn/Andresen/Harding's double-spend-relaying patch,\nincluded in Bitcoin XT, relays double-spend transactions right? Do you\nconsider that harmful?\n\n\u003e \u003e You know, you're creating an interesting bit of game theory here: if I'm\n\u003e \u003e a miner who doesn't already have a mining contract, why not implement\n\u003e \u003e full-RBF to force Coinbase to offer me one? One reason might be because\n\u003e \u003e other miners with such a contract - a majority - are going to be asked\n\u003e \u003e by Coinbase to reorg you out of the blockchain, but then we have a\n\u003e \u003e situation where a single entity has control of the blockchain.\n\u003e \u003e\n\u003e \n\u003e If someone did enter into contracts with miners to mine certain\n\u003e transactions, and had a guarantee that the miners would not build on\n\u003e previous blocks which included double spends, then they would only need\n\u003e contracts with 51% of the network anyway. So it wouldn't really matter if\n\u003e you were a small time miner and wanted to run full-RBF.\n\nBut of course, you'd never 51% the network right? After all it's not\npossible to guarantee that your miner won't mine double-spends, as there\nis no single consensus definition of which transaction came first, nor\ncan there be.\n\nOr do you see things differently? If I'm a small miner should I be\nworried my blocks might be rejected by the majority with hashing power\ncontracts because I'm unable to predict which transactions Coinbase\nbelieves should go in the blockchain?\n\n\u003e \u003e For the good of Bitcoin, and your own company, you'd do well to firmly\n\u003e \u003e state that under no condition will Coinbase ever enter into mining\n\u003e \u003e contracts.\n\u003e \u003e\n\u003e \n\u003e I don't personally see what good this does for bitcoin. Now you are\n\u003e suggesting that we should prevent a 51% attack by using policy and\n\u003e promises, rather than a technical solution. How is this any better than us\n\u003e relying on existing double spend rules which are based on policy and\n\u003e promises?\n\nWell, I think I've shown how dangerous mining contracts can be to the\noverall health of the Bitcoin ecosystem; I'm simply asking you to\npromise not to make use of this dangerous option regardless of what\nhappens. Like I said, if for whatever reason the first-seen mempool\nbehavior proves to be insufficient at preventing double-spends from your\nperspective, you did suggest you might use mining contracts to ensure\ntxs you want mined get mined, over others.\n\n\n1) \"Chainalysis CEO Denies 'Sybil Attack' on Bitcoin's Network\",\n   March 14th 2015, Grace Caffyn, Coindesk,\n   http://www.coindesk.com/chainalysis-ceo-denies-launching-sybil-attack-on-bitcoin-network/\n\n-- \n'peter'[:-1]@petertodd.org\n00000000000000000e806870e7e9cf4d507af6b78fc709e6839a8d34b52ea334\n-------------- next part --------------\nA non-text attachment was scrubbed...\nName: signature.asc\nType: application/pgp-signature\nSize: 650 bytes\nDesc: Digital signature\nURL: \u003chttp://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20150619/7559ea0b/attachment.sig\u003e"}