369
370

PSA: F2Pool is mining INVALID blocks (self.Bitcoin)

luke-jrLuke Dashjr - Bitcoin Expert が 投稿

並べ替え:
ベスト
トップ新着論争中古い順Q&A
あなたは単独のコメントのスレッドを見ています。

残りのコメントをみる →

[–]tp99 11ポイント12ポイント  (17子コメント)

If the majority are treating it as valid then doesn't that make it valid?

[–]petertoddPeter Todd - Bitcoin Expert 23ポイント24ポイント  (15子コメント)

If a majority of hashing power changed the # of Bitcoins to 42,000,000, is it still Bitcoin?

They're mining an altcoin right now.

[–]tp99 14ポイント15ポイント  (14子コメント)

Couldn't you say that those adopting BIPxx are all altcoins?

[–]luke-jrLuke Dashjr - Bitcoin Expert[S] 16ポイント17ポイント  (13子コメント)

Except BIP 66 received 95% support from the relevant group (miners). Including these pools. (And once the change is complete, there is no going back.)

[–]wotoan 2ポイント3ポイント  (9子コメント)

Right now are we not seeing less than this 95% support? If a majority of mining power is on a "invalid" chain, then they're voting with their actions.

[–]BIP66 18ポイント19ポイント  (8子コメント)

We are seeing people who announced their support for it, but weren't doing the validation actually required. By moving to version 3 blocks (a conscious change) they were required to properly validate signatures in transactions to support strict DER (previously it was BER, due to OpenSSL being sloppy to validate), and to invalidate version 2 blocks that don't. They mined an invalid version 3 block on top of a version 2 block in violation of the new rules and were forked from the chain.

[–]whitslack 6ポイント7ポイント  (5子コメント)

to support strict DER (previously it was DER, but with very sloppy rules)

DER is strict. It was BER before. (DER is a strict subset of BER that enforces exactly one unique encoding of each distinct value.)

[–]AussieCryptoCurrency 2ポイント3ポイント  (3子コメント)

DER is strict. It was BER before. (DER is a strict subset of BER that enforces exactly one unique encoding of each distinct value.)

Not exactly, I believe (/u/BIP66, correct me if I'm wrong) you're overlooking the transaction malleability and such. Here's Python code showing the checks done.

Tangentially, /u/bip66: Bip62 mentions many aspects of BIP66; the discussion of using the complement of s aka "low s value" s = N-s if s>N//2 else s (where N = curve order)...what happened with that? Why isn't it being enforced here?

[–]BIP66 4ポイント5ポイント  (0子コメント)

Why isn't it being enforced here?

That's a different soft fork, BIP66 is strict DER only.

[–]whitslack 3ポイント4ポイント  (1子コメント)

Here's Python code

Yes, this is asserting that the signature follows the ASN.1 Distinguished Encoding Rules (DER), which mandate (among other things) that SEQUENCE values use the definite-length form and that INTEGER values are encoded using the fewest possible number of bytes.

Evidently OpenSSL's signature parser really only requires that a signature follow ASN.1's Basic Encoding Rules (BER), which allow quite a bit of flexibility (and inefficiency) in how values are encoded.

[–]AussieCryptoCurrency 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

Yes, this is asserting that the signature follows the ASN.1 Distinguished Encoding Rules (DER), which mandate (among other things) that SEQUENCE values use the definite-length form and that INTEGER values are encoded using the fewest possible number of bytes.

Yeah, as /u/bip66 clarified, you're right: my bad :)

[–]Devam13 2ポイント3ポイント  (1子コメント)

nice username

[–]BIP66 2ポイント3ポイント  (0子コメント)

It's nice to be topical.

[–]HitMePat 0ポイント1ポイント  (2子コメント)

If f2pool mines a few hundred btc worth of block rewards on an "invalid" chain are they really going to agree to switch back?

[–]i_wolf 2ポイント3ポイント  (0子コメント)

those btc worth 0.

[–]luke-jrLuke Dashjr - Bitcoin Expert[S] 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

If they didn't, they would just continue to bleed more bitcoins...