Bitcoin Forum
April 30, 2024, 10:27:46 AM *
News: Latest Bitcoin Core release: 27.0 [Torrent]
 
   Home   Help Search Login Register More  
Pages: [1]
  Print  
Author Topic: Mining consecutive blocks  (Read 589 times)
JeromeL (OP)
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 554
Merit: 11

CurioInvest [IEO Live]


View Profile
May 19, 2014, 10:07:04 AM
 #1

In order to mitigate the risk of a 51% attack (and selfish mining, etc ...) why can't we implement a rule saying that a "miner" cannot mine 2 (or 3?) consecutive blocks ?

I am aware that "miner", "cannot", "mine" are general terms. Perhaps something like "when a node relays a block, the other nodes check that ip address of that node was not used to relay the previous block, if it did, the block is rejected by the other nodes", would be more specific.

What are your thoughts ? Does that make any sense ?

1714472866
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1714472866

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1714472866
Reply with quote  #2

1714472866
Report to moderator
1714472866
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1714472866

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1714472866
Reply with quote  #2

1714472866
Report to moderator
1714472866
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1714472866

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1714472866
Reply with quote  #2

1714472866
Report to moderator
The network tries to produce one block per 10 minutes. It does this by automatically adjusting how difficult it is to produce blocks.
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction.
1714472866
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1714472866

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1714472866
Reply with quote  #2

1714472866
Report to moderator
1714472866
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1714472866

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1714472866
Reply with quote  #2

1714472866
Report to moderator
1714472866
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1714472866

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1714472866
Reply with quote  #2

1714472866
Report to moderator
Rannasha
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 728
Merit: 500


View Profile
May 19, 2014, 10:18:51 AM
 #2

There is no way to positively identify a miner that doesn't want to be found. If a node receives a new block, it can't tell whether the sender is the miner or just another node that is passing on the block. Furthermore, it is trivial to use more than one IP address and change the address you send from after each block you mine.

While you can conjure up different technical constructions to this issue, the fundamental fact remains that in a decentralized network like Bitcoin participants are not registered in any way and it is trivial to assume a new identity. Any measures that rely on the identity of a miner/node will therefore be ineffective.
DannyHamilton
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 3374
Merit: 4612



View Profile
May 19, 2014, 11:11:49 AM
 #3

There is no way to positively identify a miner that doesn't want to be found. If a node receives a new block, it can't tell whether the sender is the miner or just another node that is passing on the block. Furthermore, it is trivial to use more than one IP address and change the address you send from after each block you mine.

While you can conjure up different technical constructions to this issue, the fundamental fact remains that in a decentralized network like Bitcoin participants are not registered in any way and it is trivial to assume a new identity. Any measures that rely on the identity of a miner/node will therefore be ineffective.

Furthermore, using the suggested "node cannot relay consecutive blocks", means that all miners (and mining pools) have a significant incentive NOT to relay any blocks that they receive.  If they relay a block that they receive from someone else, then they are suddenly unable to participate in mining.
Pages: [1]
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!