RoboTeddy has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer]
RoboTeddy has joined #bitcoin-wizards
jeremyrubin has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
DougieBot5000 has joined #bitcoin-wizards
d1ggy_ has joined #bitcoin-wizards
shesek has joined #bitcoin-wizards
NewLiberty has joined #bitcoin-wizards
Relos has quit [Ping timeout: 240 seconds]
d1ggy has quit [Ping timeout: 255 seconds]
nuke1989 has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
jeremyrubin has joined #bitcoin-wizards
jhogan42_ has quit [Quit: My Mac has gone to sleep. ZZZzzz…]
RoboTeddy has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer]
RoboTeddy has joined #bitcoin-wizards
NewLiberty_ has joined #bitcoin-wizards
nessence has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
NewLiberty has quit [Ping timeout: 240 seconds]
skullum has quit [Quit: Leaving.]
frankenmint has joined #bitcoin-wizards
veox has quit [Ping timeout: 264 seconds]
GGuyZ has quit [Quit: GGuyZ]
veox has joined #bitcoin-wizards
frankenmint has quit [Ping timeout: 240 seconds]
user7779078 has joined #bitcoin-wizards
user7779078 has quit [Ping timeout: 244 seconds]
kmels has joined #bitcoin-wizards
p15x_ has quit [Max SendQ exceeded]
jeremyru_ has joined #bitcoin-wizards
fanquake1 has joined #bitcoin-wizards
fanquake has quit [Ping timeout: 264 seconds]
p15x has joined #bitcoin-wizards
user7779078 has joined #bitcoin-wizards
jeremyrubin has quit [Ping timeout: 264 seconds]
GGuyZ has joined #bitcoin-wizards
hashtag_ has joined #bitcoin-wizards
kompreni has quit [Quit: kompreni]
HostFat has quit [Ping timeout: 240 seconds]
c0rw1n is now known as c0rw|sleep
RoboTeddy has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
NewLiberty has joined #bitcoin-wizards
NewLiberty_ has quit [Ping timeout: 252 seconds]
jae_ has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
jae_ has joined #bitcoin-wizards
jae_ has quit [Ping timeout: 256 seconds]
Dr-G2 has quit [Ping timeout: 246 seconds]
Dr-G2 has joined #bitcoin-wizards
belcher has quit [Quit: Leaving]
frankenmint has joined #bitcoin-wizards
jeremyru_ has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
nessence has joined #bitcoin-wizards
nessence has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer]
nessence has joined #bitcoin-wizards
frankenmint has quit [Ping timeout: 240 seconds]
nessence has quit [Ping timeout: 265 seconds]
cluckj has joined #bitcoin-wizards
kompreni has joined #bitcoin-wizards
shen_noe has joined #bitcoin-wizards
shen_noe has quit [Client Quit]
[d__d] has quit [Ping timeout: 264 seconds]
optimator_ has joined #bitcoin-wizards
optimator_ has joined #bitcoin-wizards
grubles has quit [Ping timeout: 264 seconds]
optimator has quit [Ping timeout: 264 seconds]
[d__d] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
wizkid057 has quit [Ping timeout: 264 seconds]
grubles has joined #bitcoin-wizards
grubles is now known as Guest21092
wizkid057 has joined #bitcoin-wizards
<NewLiberty>
Is there a mitigation to the risk of a node advertising itself as a version different from what it truly is?
s3gfault has joined #bitcoin-wizards
user7779_ has joined #bitcoin-wizards
user7779078 has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer]
<Adlai>
not paying attention to the self-reported version strings
<NewLiberty>
Intentional misrepresentation, say if there were a hostile reaction to a hard fork
* Adlai
is half-serious... nodes should treat all data as potentially hostile
p15x_ has joined #bitcoin-wizards
<NewLiberty>
Sure, but orthogonal. If a node is running on a different fork (because different version) but masquerading as the opposite fork in order to disrupt it
p15x has quit [Ping timeout: 272 seconds]
<NewLiberty>
If I were putting together a realtime blackhole list of nodes that are not on my fork using version, and they are masquerading, the list is bad
p15x_ has quit [Max SendQ exceeded]
p15x has joined #bitcoin-wizards
frankenmint has joined #bitcoin-wizards
zooko`` has left #bitcoin-wizards ["#tahoe-lafs the cryptographically-protected, decentralized file store"]
* Adlai
shrugs, this also sounds more for #bitcoin-dev or even #bitcoin
jae_ has joined #bitcoin-wizards
* NewLiberty
thanks you for your patience
frankenmint has quit [Ping timeout: 256 seconds]
TheSeven has quit [Disconnected by services]
[7] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
RoboTeddy has joined #bitcoin-wizards
jae_ has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
p15x has quit [Max SendQ exceeded]
<Luke-Jr>
NewLiberty: the version is software, not network. if you need to "blackhole" nodes on a different network, you're already dead.
jae_ has joined #bitcoin-wizards
<NewLiberty>
Thanks for responding, but you've misunderstood the risk.
<Luke-Jr>
there is no risk, when it comes to reported software version. *shrug*
<NewLiberty>
Adlai answered already. Don't trust it.
p15x has joined #bitcoin-wizards
<Adlai>
judge peers based on behavior, which incidentally is what the current software already dose
tcrypt has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
jae_ has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
<NewLiberty>
Right. just will need the distinguishing behaivor (which can't exist yet anyway)
user7779_ has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
NkWsy has joined #bitcoin-wizards
p15x has quit [Ping timeout: 272 seconds]
<NewLiberty>
Luke-Jr consider if you are looking for nodes validating vs 20mb blocks and some trouble maker sets up many nodes that pretend to do so by reporting new version, but are running old version on 1mb chain instead.
<Adlai>
if one chain has higher total work than the other, and both are valid by your own node's consensus rules, should you care about anything else?
<Adlai>
partitioning your own node to intentionally use a less secure fork will only make it easier to perform attacks involving reorganizations against your node
<NewLiberty>
Of course not, in such case there isn't an issue. but that state would be temporary, and likely brief.
<NewLiberty>
These would be chaff nodes, just to get in the way of the fork they would want to fail
<NewLiberty>
So it is sort of thier goal to make it iasier to perform such attacks
p15x has joined #bitcoin-wizards
<Adlai>
maybe you can explain what "such attacks" entail? afaik the relevant "attack" in this situation is an economic one, that of incentivizing a majority of hashrate to mine your preferred fork; and this is because the fork with the majority hashrate wins, no matter what the "chaff nodes" say
jae_ has joined #bitcoin-wizards
<NewLiberty>
Hashrate will follow investment
<NewLiberty>
yes?
<Adlai>
do you have a specific attack in mind, one at the level of the wire protocol?
<NewLiberty>
Not at the wire...
<NewLiberty>
If all the TX on one fork aren't getting to miners
<Adlai>
"wire" in the sense of protocol messages sent between nodes, maybe that's the wrong word
p15x has quit [Max SendQ exceeded]
p15x has joined #bitcoin-wizards
<NewLiberty>
With no TX that fork isn't going anywhere, and then divergence in pricing between two forks occurs, miners might be switch to the other more lucerative fork.
williamdunne has quit [Ping timeout: 272 seconds]
<NewLiberty>
Anyhow, you answered what I sought in your first line, so TY
<Adlai>
(in case you're worried about getting partitioned in the clearnet p2p network)
<NewLiberty>
I'm not worried for myself, just looking at some attack vectors that might be used to leverage an economic attacks by disrupting during a rare event. Corner case risks.
* NewLiberty
tumbles down the freenetproject rabbithole anyway
NkWsy has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
p15x_ has joined #bitcoin-wizards
p15x has quit [Ping timeout: 240 seconds]
jae_ has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
jae_ has joined #bitcoin-wizards
NkWsy has joined #bitcoin-wizards
NkWsy has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
NkWsy has joined #bitcoin-wizards
p15x_ has quit [Max SendQ exceeded]
p15x has joined #bitcoin-wizards
frankenmint has joined #bitcoin-wizards
jae_ has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
frankenmint has quit [Ping timeout: 265 seconds]
p15x has quit [Quit: My Mac has gone to sleep. ZZZzzz…]
s3gfault has quit [Ping timeout: 276 seconds]
s3gfault has joined #bitcoin-wizards
jposner has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
kompreni has quit [Quit: kompreni]
jae_ has joined #bitcoin-wizards
Mably has joined #bitcoin-wizards
NkWsy has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
Giszmo has quit [Quit: Leaving.]
jae_ has quit [Ping timeout: 265 seconds]
ThomasV has joined #bitcoin-wizards
priidu has joined #bitcoin-wizards
NkWsy has joined #bitcoin-wizards
kompreni has joined #bitcoin-wizards
arubi has quit [Ping timeout: 272 seconds]
NkWsy has quit [Ping timeout: 272 seconds]
NkWsy_ has joined #bitcoin-wizards
Transisto2 has quit [Ping timeout: 265 seconds]
NkWsy has joined #bitcoin-wizards
NkWsy_ has quit [Ping timeout: 256 seconds]
hashtag_ has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer]
hashtag_ has joined #bitcoin-wizards
frankenmint has joined #bitcoin-wizards
nessence has joined #bitcoin-wizards
ThomasV has quit [Ping timeout: 256 seconds]
frankenmint has quit [Ping timeout: 264 seconds]
arubi has joined #bitcoin-wizards
kmels has quit [Quit: Saliendo]
NkWsy has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
b_lumenkraft has joined #bitcoin-wizards
nessence has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer]
o84wb76g has joined #bitcoin-wizards
antanst has joined #bitcoin-wizards
gill3s has joined #bitcoin-wizards
hktud0 has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer]
hktud0 has joined #bitcoin-wizards
xenog has joined #bitcoin-wizards
blackwraith has joined #bitcoin-wizards
priidu has quit [Ping timeout: 264 seconds]
felipelalli has joined #bitcoin-wizards
p15x has joined #bitcoin-wizards
p15x has quit [Max SendQ exceeded]
nessence has joined #bitcoin-wizards
arubi has quit [Ping timeout: 276 seconds]
Mably has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer]
frankenmint has joined #bitcoin-wizards
Mably has joined #bitcoin-wizards
frankenmint has quit [Ping timeout: 272 seconds]
p15x has joined #bitcoin-wizards
p15x has quit [Ping timeout: 244 seconds]
p15x has joined #bitcoin-wizards
nessence has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
gielbier has joined #bitcoin-wizards
andy-logbot has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
andy-logbot has joined #bitcoin-wizards
* andy-logbot
is logging
HostFat has joined #bitcoin-wizards
<kompreni>
Adlai said ``miners might be switch to the other more lucerative fork.'' I have thought about this often. What if a majority of miners worked together to create a fork that was profitable while not necessarily nefarious. For instance, I often think about ``lost coins'', or coins where the private key is no longer accessible for whatever reason. Since there will only ever be 21e6 coins, expiring lost coins should only increase
<kompreni>
value of the remaining coins.
RoboTeddy has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
<Luke-Jr>
kompreni: miners don't get to decide hardforks.
<kompreni>
It seems at least in theory it would be possible for miners to expire these coins. Suppose we have some block height X and some number of blocks Y. Starting from blockheight X-Y, people could prove control over private keys by creating a transaction to themselves. At block X, all tx inputs for new transactions must come from tx outputs from blocks with height greater than X-Y.
RoboTeddy has joined #bitcoin-wizards
<stonecoldpat>
kompreni: if i understand right, the miners would take control of the expired bitcoins - if they have not been used for 'y' blocks?
<stonecoldpat>
if that was the case, then miners have the incentive to censor high-valued transactions - and then just claim them when 'y' happens, assuming their greedy
<Luke-Jr>
how does expiry work with cold wallets?
SDCDev has joined #bitcoin-wizards
<kompreni>
stonecoldpat: Not necessarily take control — that would be a more nefarious scheme. I was thinking something more honest, like ``these coins have not been used in however long, so we will reject them if they are not proven usable by a certain time’’
<kompreni>
Luke-Jr: the transaction would get rejected by the network if the source address is not proven spendable within the timeframe
<Luke-Jr>
kompreni: there is no such thing as a source address in bitcoin
<Luke-Jr>
and killing cold wallets would be annoying
<kompreni>
Luke-Jr: sorry, I meant utxos
<stonecoldpat>
kompreni: would that not just encourage more broadcasting on the network? and if they become invalid - do the coins become recycled in the coinbase? or lost forever?
<Luke-Jr>
I see no benefit to such expiry. Just downsides.
<kompreni>
Luke-Jr That would be annoying, but to quote gmaxwell: ``My perspective is that absolute soundness is best (rules which cannot be broken at all), followed by cryptographic soundness (rules that breaking requires P=NP, theft of a secret, or insane luck), followed by economic soundness (rules that cannot be profitably broken), followed by honesty soundness (rules that hold when the participants follow the rules and aren't fault
<kompreni>
What if it was economically sound to do so?
<stonecoldpat>
kompreni: if they are recycled, then the miners would take control and we're back to censoring transactions
<kompreni>
I’m wasn’t considering them recycled… I was thinking lost forever.
<stonecoldpat>
if i cant 'spend' the utxo / prove ownership of it - then no one is entitled to those coins
<kompreni>
Right
<kompreni>
The value of everyone else's bitcoin would increase, provided they could prove spendability
<Luke-Jr>
I don't see how you think that quote is relevant.
<stonecoldpat>
if they are lost forever then all we do is reduce the utxo set, i dont think the data saved in ram would be enough
<kompreni>
Luke-Jr: I think it’s relevant because this exploit would be at the fault of the bottom two rungs of soundness - that is economic soundness and honesty soundness.
<kompreni>
The miners need not be honest to the core devs
<Luke-Jr>
what exploit?
<kompreni>
(honesty)
<kompreni>
And it also might be more profitable for miners to run nodes that requires provable spendability
<kompreni>
(economics)
RoboTeddy has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
RoboTeddy has joined #bitcoin-wizards
<stonecoldpat>
i can see that what you suggest would be to explicitly show people that there are less coins, but this is already done implicitly if coins have not been used for a long time (zombie coins) - i cant comment to say if the explicit is worthwhile, it could be counter-productive as people lose large stocks of coins and then leave the eco-system
frankenmint has joined #bitcoin-wizards
<stonecoldpat>
i think the fact we already have a hard-limit of 21m is already worrying people of the future, never mind being explicit that we have less than 21m
<s3gfault>
there should never be expiry on coins, unless its dust.
Relos has joined #bitcoin-wizards
<kompreni>
People at risk of losing large quantities of coins could be buffered with ample block time (say, a year).
<s3gfault>
i think most people would be alright with giving UTXO's under 0.0001BTC to miners if they're not moved in say, 4-5 years
CoinMuncher has joined #bitcoin-wizards
<s3gfault>
i bet that sort of code could be merged in without much objection... it would really need to be dust though... 1000 satoshis or less and not moved for 4 years
<s3gfault>
brb
frankenmint has quit [Ping timeout: 240 seconds]
<stonecoldpat>
s3gfault: i can see right now that would work yeah, in 40 years time if dust is standard usage (so 0.0010 represnts $20, with $1 transaction fees) then it may not be
<stonecoldpat>
s/$10/$20 ...
<s3gfault>
thats why it needs to be sweeped within 4 years , not 4 years. so people losing their dust can't complain
<s3gfault>
'not 40 years'
<kompreni>
Also, and I may be getting myself neck deep here, but I think it’s tough to institutionalize an asset like Bitcoin when people don’t know how many coins are actually usable. For instance, consider Satoshi’s mined blocks. All together, he contains several percentages of the total supply of Bitcoin. Is it not of significant investor interest to determine if such high quantities are actually usable?
<s3gfault>
fees will be adjusted... any UTXO worth less then 1 cent USD should be given to miners if not spent after X blocks
<s3gfault>
brb
<stonecoldpat>
i just mean if the code was merged and we had this cycle of sweeping for a long time - in the future it will probably need removed if small coins become valuable
<Jaamg>
why should the dust be sweeped?
<stonecoldpat>
kompreni: thats a bit like saying - nobody knows who owns this gold so lets melt it and blast it into space, so we are certain it can no longer be counted
GGuyZ has quit [Quit: GGuyZ]
<Jaamg>
what if i, say, just printed a big pile of 1 and 10 μBTC notes and dug them in the ground
<Jaamg>
to be dug out after 15 years
rubensayshi has joined #bitcoin-wizards
<stonecoldpat>
kompreni: people may very well find their private key again, satoshi may even return (or his grandkids) to cash-out and buy a super-yhoat to escape the press
nessence has joined #bitcoin-wizards
<stonecoldpat>
yacht***
ThomasV has joined #bitcoin-wizards
<kompreni>
stonecoldpat I was actually thinking of it as a one-time expiry, not a periodic occurrence necessarily. I think the idea of some mystery figures owning large stakes of Bitcoin is causing big players who want to be involved, to not take the risk. I have no facts to back this up though (lol)
<Jaamg>
who should decide when this one-time expiry happens?
<kompreni>
So I guess my argument is from multiple perspectives. To recap: it would increase the value of spendable Bitcoins, since those not proven so would become worthless. And, it would remove some of the confusion around the true market cap, shareholding, etc of Bitcoin
<Jaamg>
and what expires
<kompreni>
Jaamg the Mining network collectively would decide to run nodes that hardfork to reject txs composed of utxos dating back from a block height less than a (network agreed upon) block-height-threshold, so to speak.
o84wb76g has quit [Quit: Leaving]
<Jaamg>
kompreni: i think it would pretty hard for them to find consensus on this
<kompreni>
Certainly not NP Hard, though ;)
<stonecoldpat>
id be worried though - if miners collectively started to censor these transactions, this further opens the gate to censorship
<Jaamg>
kompreni: maybe not, but i don't think there is anything that can be done to it
<Jaamg>
or is there?
<stonecoldpat>
while miners do have that power - i dont think its a miners role to dictate what transaction gets in/out as some type of gate-keeper, they should be accepting all valid transactions
<stonecoldpat>
of course if theres a backlog, there is a priority attached to transactions, but that should be well-defined
<kompreni>
I would not doubt the power of group of people to effectively ``unionize''
<kompreni>
The people in this case being miners
<kompreni>
I think it is foolish to think the Core Devs will be able to maintain a grapple on the entire network out of good faith. Because that is ultimately what it comes down to — good faith. If enough support is garnered from running some custom hardfork node in the biggest pools, the entire ecosystem could be easily hijacked
nessence has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer]
<kompreni>
And by ``entire'' I mean 51%
nessence_ has joined #bitcoin-wizards
<kompreni>
What is stopping them?
arubi_ has joined #bitcoin-wizards
<stonecoldpat>
as you said earlier, the economic factors, that type of censorship could kill the value of bitcoin, (we dont know if it would or not) - but its an unknown that is stopping them
RoboTedd_ has joined #bitcoin-wizards
RoboTedd_ has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer]
RoboTedd_ has joined #bitcoin-wizards
RoboTedd_ has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer]
RoboTed__ has joined #bitcoin-wizards
RoboTeddy has quit [Ping timeout: 255 seconds]
RoboTed__ has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer]
RoboTeddy has joined #bitcoin-wizards
RoboTeddy has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer]
<kompreni>
I agree it could kill it. But I could also see it being part of a process to supplant that radical, free (awesome!) value with institutional value, i.e. the consensus algorithm becomes entangled with special interest groups, lobbying, etc.
RoboTeddy has joined #bitcoin-wizards
RoboTeddy has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer]
RoboTeddy has joined #bitcoin-wizards
ThomasV has quit [Ping timeout: 265 seconds]
DougieBot5000 has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer]
dc17523be3 has quit [Ping timeout: 276 seconds]
<kompreni>
I mean hey, look at how being ``free'' in America has changed over time — we live in a constant state of surveillance. Granted, that consensus algorithm (the constitution) has evolved pretty slowly, but technology evolves fast. And I think (economic) security can be seen as a driving factor in both cases. I think we should give credence to patterns in history and prepare as best as we can :)
p15x_ has joined #bitcoin-wizards
dc17523be3 has joined #bitcoin-wizards
p15x has quit [Ping timeout: 272 seconds]
c-cex-yuriy has joined #bitcoin-wizards
lmatteis has quit [Ping timeout: 245 seconds]
dc17523be3 has quit [Ping timeout: 240 seconds]
dc17523be3 has joined #bitcoin-wizards
lmatteis has joined #bitcoin-wizards
Quanttek has joined #bitcoin-wizards
gielbier has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer]
s3gfault_ has joined #bitcoin-wizards
s3gfault has quit [Ping timeout: 244 seconds]
ThomasV has joined #bitcoin-wizards
sparetire_ has quit [Quit: sparetire_]
[1]LeMiner has joined #bitcoin-wizards
LeMiner has quit [Disconnected by services]
[1]LeMiner is now known as LeMiner
LeMiner has quit [Changing host]
LeMiner has joined #bitcoin-wizards
p15x has joined #bitcoin-wizards
p15x_ has quit [Ping timeout: 276 seconds]
Logicwax has quit [Ping timeout: 240 seconds]
<stonecoldpat>
does anyone know if spv wallets today support building a merkle-tree to prove that an utxo they can spend has been accepted to the blockchain?
Logicwax has joined #bitcoin-wizards
LeMiner has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer]
<ThomasV>
stonecoldpat: this seems to be the definition of spv
<stonecoldpat>
i mean, is there a wallet today that would generate that information for me, that I could then give to someone in a seperate communication channel
<ThomasV>
generate the merkle branch, or the whole tree?
<stonecoldpat>
just the branch
<sipa>
spv wallets don't build such proofs, they request them and verify them
LeMiner has joined #bitcoin-wizards
<sipa>
to build them, you need to have the block
c0rw|sleep has quit [Ping timeout: 256 seconds]
<sipa>
and bitcoin core has recently a patch merged to create such a proof
<ThomasV>
electrum requests the merkle branch from an electrum server; you could use that
<ThomasV>
sipa: so it will be available with bitcoin-cli?
LeMiner has quit [Client Quit]
<stonecoldpat>
ah that is cool ill check out that patch and the electrum server is a good idea thanks thomas - i wasnt sure if an spv client would keep the merkle tree locally once it hears about the new transaction or not (that could then be regurigated).
LeMiner has joined #bitcoin-wizards
c0rw|sleep has joined #bitcoin-wizards
LeMiner has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer]
sausage_factory has joined #bitcoin-wizards
LeMiner has joined #bitcoin-wizards
frankenmint has joined #bitcoin-wizards
blackwraith has quit [Ping timeout: 256 seconds]
RoboTeddy has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
metamarc has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer]
<StephenM347>
amiller: the image resource isn't showing, fyi
NkWsy has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
<amiller>
ive been quiet about it mostly because i wanted a chance to collect some of the data before the technique is widely known
<amiller>
StephenM347, uh, i think i just fixed it try again :(
<StephenM347>
amiller: yeah, works now
<amiller>
one of the main ideas is to use 'addrman' finger printing to figure out which nodes in the public network are connected to each other
<sipa>
amiller: hah, did you know about the technique beforehand, or did you learn about it from nickler?
<amiller>
i.e., whats the topology of the reachable network? is it actually random or is it skewed towards well connected nodes or is it vulnerable to partitions
antgreen has quit [Ping timeout: 256 seconds]
<amiller>
sipa, i've been using it since jan 2013 or so.
frankenmint has joined #bitcoin-wizards
<sipa>
ha
<sipa>
evil
<amiller>
ive shown preprints of my paper to gmaxwell and a few others earlier btw to cover my ass and have a better chance of not inadvertently breaking the network
<amiller>
also tested it on local networks and partially tested it in my shadow simulator
<amiller>
(i'm actually very anxious / self concious about doing anything 'bad' to the network especially after chainalysis etc. so im trying to stay on the non-evil side here)
<sipa>
i'm mostly talking about not trying to get it fixed for so long :)
jae_ has joined #bitcoin-wizards
<amiller>
well, like i said i mentioned the technique discreetly, so it could have been stopped quicker if it seemed urgent
<amiller>
im of the opinion that this kind of measurement / fingerprinting is more of a positive thing than a negative thing so im a bit sad newer versions make it harder for that reason
jgarzik has joined #bitcoin-wizards
<CodeShark>
"It is therefore possible to block a node from hearing about a transaction for two minutes by sending an INV message and then ignoring the resultant GETDATA." - I don't think that's a good thing :p
<hulkhogan_>
it depends on how it will be used, analysis has its place but a network map of all p2p nodes , if its a effective technique would probably be used to analyze a part of the topology before attempting a sybil (so its useful in that regard, i suppose)
<CodeShark>
I'm not so much talking about the use cases but about the fact it's possible to do this
<KuDeTa>
" Assuming honest pools broadcast using the standard protocol, and the selfish pool selectively creates low latency connections to the influential set, the latter can gain huge broadcast advantage."
Quanttek has quit [Ping timeout: 252 seconds]
<KuDeTa>
^^interesting, is this well known>?
Mably_ has quit [Ping timeout: 240 seconds]
<KuDeTa>
"Prior work has shown that a selfish mining pool can gain advantage if it initially withholds blocks it finds, but then releases them as soon as a competing block is found." (Prior work, i guess so, nm)
<amiller>
ah yeah so besides the topology mapping, the mining pool decloaking stuff is entirely new and i havent talked about it at all yet
<KuDeTa>
i am by no common measure, a wizard of any type,but amiller am i right in thinking that a carefully constructed DOS attack to that "2%" IP address would cause havock?
<KuDeTa>
havoc*
<KuDeTa>
sorry, 2% list of IP addresses..*
<KuDeTa>
i guess if you can knock 3/4 of the hashing power out, even only for a few hours, that could be a very profitable little adventure.
moa has joined #bitcoin-wizards
<amiller>
KuDeTa, i think its possible. i think its likely (but my evidence is not totally conclusive) that there are several mining entities with a single publicly reachable frontend, so those could be dosed. i *speculate* that what is happening is that other pools including the largest pools have outgoing-connection-only frontends and so that would be harder to dos
belcher has joined #bitcoin-wizards
<amiller>
also just because i found a bunch of nodes with high affinity for one pool or another, it oculd be they are just the lowest latency connections, and if those were taken out there are lots of other connections too just marginally higher latency, so they dont win races
s3gfault_ has joined #bitcoin-wizards
<KuDeTa>
hmm, yeah, i figure the big pools have thought about this and taken counter measures (i think i remember some pools being dos'd in the early days) - still, i wonder if your work leads to ways of constructing attacks that could do harm? Have you thought about it much?
s3gfault has quit [Ping timeout: 272 seconds]
fanquake1 has joined #bitcoin-wizards
fanquake has quit [Ping timeout: 264 seconds]
Burrito has quit [Quit: Leaving]
frankenmint has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
jhogan42 has quit [Quit: My Mac has gone to sleep. ZZZzzz…]
frankenm_ has joined #bitcoin-wizards
<CodeShark>
"i figure the big pools have thought about this and taken counter measures" - famous last words :p
temujin has quit [Ping timeout: 246 seconds]
<KuDeTa>
would sure be interesting to watch if someone tried to do it..
<CodeShark>
even assuming equal propagation chances, the selfish miner attack still only requires 1/3 of the network
<KuDeTa>
;)
s3gfault_ has quit [Quit: Lost terminal]
<CodeShark>
we like to live dangerously, though ;)
Dr-G has joined #bitcoin-wizards
Dr-G has joined #bitcoin-wizards
jhogan42 has joined #bitcoin-wizards
Dr-G2 has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer]
moa has quit [Quit: Leaving.]
michagogo has quit [Ping timeout: 256 seconds]
jtimon has joined #bitcoin-wizards
michagogo has joined #bitcoin-wizards
b_lumenkraft has quit [Quit: b_lumenkraft]
frankenm_ has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
hashtagg_ has joined #bitcoin-wizards
hashtag_ has quit [Ping timeout: 244 seconds]
antanst has quit [Quit: Leaving.]
GGuyZ has joined #bitcoin-wizards
jtimon has quit [Quit: No Ping reply in 180 seconds.]
jtimon has joined #bitcoin-wizards
hashtag has quit [Ping timeout: 272 seconds]
hashtag_ has joined #bitcoin-wizards
Starduster has quit [Ping timeout: 258 seconds]
jtimon has quit [Quit: No Ping reply in 180 seconds.]
KuDeTa has quit [Quit: KuDeTa]
jtimon has joined #bitcoin-wizards
jtimon has quit [Quit: No Ping reply in 180 seconds.]
Luke-Jr has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
jtimon has joined #bitcoin-wizards
fanquake has joined #bitcoin-wizards
jgarzik has quit [Quit: This computer has gone to sleep]
DougieBot5000 has quit [Quit: Leaving]
jgarzik has joined #bitcoin-wizards
jgarzik has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
fanquake1 has quit [Ping timeout: 264 seconds]
StephenM347 has quit []
rusty has joined #bitcoin-wizards
frankenmint has joined #bitcoin-wizards
grandmaster has quit [Ping timeout: 255 seconds]
user7779078 has joined #bitcoin-wizards
frankenmint has quit [Ping timeout: 276 seconds]
NewLiberty has joined #bitcoin-wizards
Starduster has joined #bitcoin-wizards
NewLiberty_ has quit [Ping timeout: 265 seconds]
GGuyZ has quit [Quit: GGuyZ]
justanotheruser has quit [Ping timeout: 264 seconds]
justanotheruser has joined #bitcoin-wizards
<belcher>
is there anything that could be done about services like cryptograffiti.info bloating up the utxo set ?
dEBRUYNE has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer]
<belcher>
sending small amounts of thousands of addresses in an effort to store data
jae_ has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
* chmod755
adds cryptograffiti.info btc addresses to his blacklist
<copumpkin>
wtf, people putting torrent URLs in there
<belcher>
chmod755 how do you know what they are in advance?
<belcher>
copumpkin also whole images
jae_ has joined #bitcoin-wizards
<belcher>
might be easier to live with if it was with op_return
<belcher>
but this junk is unprunable
<belcher>
chmod755 also what blacklist? i assume your miner..
Starduster has quit [Ping timeout: 258 seconds]
<belcher>
you can detect them by checking if the address hex is all ascii characters
jtimon has quit [Quit: No Ping reply in 180 seconds.]
<gmaxwell>
if only there were some way to limit the amount of data the network carried! or perhaps a way to neutrally allocate capacity between more and less valuable uses, without passing a personal judgement over each one? Too bad no one has any idea how to accomplish that!
<gmaxwell>
belcher: that test has a pretty poor false positive rate, sadly. :(
jtimon has joined #bitcoin-wizards
c0rw1n is now known as c0rw|zZz
<chmod755>
belcher, it looks like they are reusing some addresses
<gmaxwell>
hm. higher than I thought, so "contains a non-printable character" looks like about one in 250 million. unless I'm math failing.
<gmaxwell>
In anycase; going and blocking particular things is a not great route.
<belcher>
yep, that would reduce confidence in bitcoin
<gmaxwell>
chmod755: I dunno about that one; but many of those things required their users pay to some static service address; so a generic high reuse deprioritizer catches them; but thats easily changed.
<belcher>
chmod755 they might be reusing addresses because common messages are repeated
<gmaxwell>
belcher: the more generic the less concerning; but really the system has mecneisms to deal with it more fundimentally; limits and a market for the limit.
<belcher>
the utxo set is a common good if im not mistaken, the market for fees is only for blockchain space
<belcher>
perhaps some kind of outreach ? convince developers to use op_return instead of utxos
jae_ has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
<gmaxwell>
belcher: can't add to the UTXO without using blockchain space.
<gmaxwell>
the whole motivation is to externalize cost for people, using an encoding that helps people not store your data doesn't sound like a great pitch. :)
jae_ has joined #bitcoin-wizards
grandmaster has joined #bitcoin-wizards
<belcher>
regarding fees, the market doesnt operate on utxos, spending 100 utxos to create one isnt cheaper than spending 1 to create 100, the calculation the miner does is presumably related to propagation time not utxo size
<sipa>
belcher: it actually is, in the current bitcoin core calculation
<belcher>
i understand the blockchain will always need to be stored somewhere, to bootstrap new nodes and all, so op_return will still fulfill their desire for permanent storage
felipelalli has quit [Ping timeout: 244 seconds]
<belcher>
sipa i didnt know that, thats nice of the miners
DougieBot5000 has joined #bitcoin-wizards
<belcher>
i guess they're full nodes and store the utxo set too
<gmaxwell>
more like "thats nice of them to not pay any attention to the changes gmaxwell made"
<belcher>
i wont tell anyone :)
<gmaxwell>
but that behavior is only to change the calculation for 'free' transactions; -- I figured more would cause action.
<gmaxwell>
since changing the priority of w/ fee would arguably reduce income.
<gmaxwell>
In any case; there are lots of people proposing that nodes don't bother with history and just hotstart from some trusted database.
frankenm_ has joined #bitcoin-wizards
jtimon has quit [Quit: No Ping reply in 180 seconds.]
<gmaxwell>
I'm not personally fond of it; but it seems likely to happen to varrious degrees. Reachability of OP_RETURN data isn't necessarily so good, and even if a node has it-- that doesn't mean it'll serve it to you.