rich1.0npub16dt55fpq3a8r6zpphd9xngxr46zzqs75gna9cj5vf8pknyv2d7equx4wrdhttps://nostr.ae/npub16dt55fpq3a8r6zpphd9xngxr46zzqs75gna9cj5vf8pknyv2d7equx4wrdnjumphttps://nostr.ae📅 Original date posted:2019-10-04 📝 Original message:On Thu, Oct 03, 2019 at 05:38:36PM -0700, Braydon Fuller via bitcoin-dev wrote: > This paper describes a solution [to DoS attacks] that does not > require enabling or maintaining checkpoints and provides improved security. > [...] > The paper is available at: > https://bcoin.io/papers/bitcoin-chain-expansion.pdf Hi Braydon, Thank you for researching this important issue. An alternative solution proposed some time ago (I believe originally by Gregory Maxwell) was a soft fork to raise the minimum difficulty. You can find discussion of it in various old IRC conversations[1,2] as well as in related changes to Bitcoin Core such as PR #9053 addining minimum chain work[3] and the assumed-valid change added in Bitcoin Core 0.14.0[4]. [1] http://www.erisian.com.au/meetbot/bitcoin-core-dev/2016/bitcoin-core-dev.2016-10-27-19.01.log.html#l-121 [2] http://www.erisian.com.au/meetbot/bitcoin-core-dev/2017/bitcoin-core-dev.2017-03-02-19.01.log.html#l-57 [3] https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/9053/commits/fd46136dfaf68a7046cf7b8693824d73ac6b1caf [4] https://bitcoincore.org/en/2017/03/08/release-0.14.0/#assumed-valid-blocks The solutions proposed in section 4.2 and 4.3 of your paper have the advantage of not requiring any consensus changes. However, I find it hard to analyze the full consequences of the throttling solution in 4.3 and the pruning solution in 4.2. If we assume a node is on the most-PoW valid chain and that a huge fork is unlikely, it seems fine. But I worry that the mechanisms could also be used to keep a node that synced to a long-but-lower-PoW chain on that false chain (or other false chain) indefinitely even if it had connections to honest peers that tried to tell it about the most-PoW chain. For example, with your maximum throttle of 5 seconds between `getheaders` requests and the `headers` P2P message maximum of 2,000 headers per instance, it would take about half an hour to get a full chain worth of headers. If a peer was disconnected before sending enough headers to establish they were on the most-PoW chain, your pruning solution would delete whatever progress was made, forcing the next peer to start from genesis and taking them at least half an hour too. On frequently-suspended laptops or poor connections, it's possible a node could be be operational for a long time before it kept the same connection open for half an hour. All that time, it would be on a dishonest chain. By comparison, I find it easy to analyze the effect of raising the minimum difficulty. It is a change to the consensus rules, so it's something we should be careful about, but it's the kind of basically-one-line change that I expect should be easy for a large number of people to review directly. Assuming the choice of a new minimum (and what point in the chain to use it) is sane, I think it would be easy to get acceptance, and I think it would further be easy increase it again every five years or so as overall hashrate increases. -Dave