speaking of Bitcoin ... the july4th split
sometimes even consensus not enough, [ failure at 95% agreement! ] SPV is a compensating measure that addresses block size without reifying incompatibilities. however, with drawbacks and risk, as taken on chin in this one: https://bitcoin.org/en/alert/2015-07-04-spv-mining """ Summary: Some miners are currently generating invalid blocks. Almost all software (besides Bitcoin Core 0.9.5 and later) will accept these invalid blocks under certain conditions. The paragraphs that follow explain the cause more throughly. For several months, an increasing amount of mining hash rate has been signaling its intent to begin enforcing BIP66 strict DER signatures. As part of the BIP66 rules, once 950 of the last 1,000 blocks were version 3 (v3) blocks, all upgraded miners would reject version 2 (v2) blocks. Early morning UTC on 4 July 2015, the 950/1000 (95%) threshold was reached. Shortly thereafter, a small miner (part of the non-upgraded 5%) mined an invalid block--as was an expected occurrence. Unfortunately, it turned out that roughly half the network hash rate was mining without fully validating blocks (called SPV mining), and built new blocks on top of that invalid block. Note that the roughly 50% of the network that was SPV mining had explicitly indicated that they would enforce the BIP66 rules. By not doing so, several large miners have lost over $50,000 dollars worth of mining income so far. All software that assumes blocks are valid (because invalid blocks cost miners money) is at risk of showing transactions as confirmed when they really aren't. This particularly affects lightweight (SPV) wallets and software such as old versions of Bitcoin Core which have been downgraded to SPV-level security by the new BIP66 consensus rules. The immediate fix, which is well underway as of this writing, is to get all miners off of SPV mining and back to full validation (at least temporarily). As this progresses, we will reduce our current recommendation of waiting 30 extra confirmations to a lower number. """
Half the net is SPV... MINING??? They got what they had coming, though. Very strange to not spend a tease on full validation :s Maybe they hope to save some time and start mining that new block earlier? Seems they lost quite a bit more than they might've ever saved now.
On Mon, Jul 06, 2015 at 04:06:36AM +0900, Lodewijk andré de la porte wrote:
Half the net is SPV... MINING???
They got what they had coming, though.
Very strange to not spend a tease on full validation :s
Maybe they hope to save some time and start mining that new block earlier? Seems they lost quite a bit more than they might've ever saved now.
Give me a large mining pool with a dedicated low-latency (worldwide) network and I bet I can show a marginally higher rate of return (more blocks) by running SPV mining software. What's unknown is if the network + wrong-fork costs exceed the return from being able to start mining a new block sooner or not. This is a very small advantage with Bitcoin. But with any short-block coin (litecoin) or the 1-minute altcoins, seconds (or maybe even milliseconds) matter. On the 1-minute alts you could have 40% of the hashpower and probably get 60-80% of the blocks by starting mining earlier and then mining on top of blocks you just found.
On 7/11/15, Troy Benjegerdes <hozer@hozed.org> wrote:
... Give me a large mining pool with a dedicated low-latency (worldwide) network and I bet I can show a marginally higher rate of return...
a malicious advantage; that's what we've not seen taken opportunity of yet...
participants (3)
-
coderman
-
Lodewijk andré de la porte
-
Troy Benjegerdes