Can we change the mining protocol ?

[newIndia]

Is it technically possible to change the mining protocol, so that a certain IP (solo miner or pool operator) cant have more than 49% hashpower ?

[ljudotina]

Protocol can be change to whatever is needed. It's just question of will miners go to new version of software or will they stick to old one.

[shorena]

Is it technically possible to change the mining protocol, so that a certain IP (solo miner or pool operator) cant have more than 49% hashpower ?

No.

#1 you cant force miners to update their client, so you are suggesting a hardfork
#2 you cant check how much hashingpower a certain IP has. You might allow only 49% of all block over a given time from a certain IP, but that would need a central place to deliver those blocks which can check where they come from. Thats not p2p, thats even more power on a single point. besides that: miners could just change the IP.

also: there allready is an emergency solution: http://gavintech.blogspot.de/2012/05/neutralizing-51-attack.html

[BitCoinDream]

Is it technically possible to change the mining protocol, so that a certain IP (solo miner or pool operator) cant have more than 49% hashpower ?

No.

#1 you cant force miners to update their client, so you are suggesting a hardfork
#2 you cant check how much hashingpower a certain IP has. You might allow only 49% of all block over a given time from a certain IP, but that would need a central place to deliver those blocks which can check where they come from. Thats not p2p, thats even more power on a single point. besides that: miners could just change the IP.

also: there allready is an emergency solution: http://gavintech.blogspot.de/2012/05/neutralizing-51-attack.html

Looks like this emergency solution is a push to centralization as already pointed out by some in the comment section. Old coins wont be there with new miners so mining will become the monopoly of the oldies.

[shorena]

Is it technically possible to change the mining protocol, so that a certain IP (solo miner or pool operator) cant have more than 49% hashpower ?

No.

#1 you cant force miners to update their client, so you are suggesting a hardfork
#2 you cant check how much hashingpower a certain IP has. You might allow only 49% of all block over a given time from a certain IP, but that would need a central place to deliver those blocks which can check where they come from. Thats not p2p, thats even more power on a single point. besides that: miners could just change the IP.

also: there allready is an emergency solution: http://gavintech.blogspot.de/2012/05/neutralizing-51-attack.html

Looks like this emergency solution is a push to centralization as already pointed out by some in the comment section. Old coins wont be there with new miners so mining will become the monopoly of the oldies.

Yes its a bad solution thats why its filed under "only use in case of emergency"

Old coins wont be there with new miners? I dont understand what you are trying to say.

[BitCoinDream]

Is it technically possible to change the mining protocol, so that a certain IP (solo miner or pool operator) cant have more than 49% hashpower ?

No.

#1 you cant force miners to update their client, so you are suggesting a hardfork
#2 you cant check how much hashingpower a certain IP has. You might allow only 49% of all block over a given time from a certain IP, but that would need a central place to deliver those blocks which can check where they come from. Thats not p2p, thats even more power on a single point. besides that: miners could just change the IP.

also: there allready is an emergency solution: http://gavintech.blogspot.de/2012/05/neutralizing-51-attack.html

Looks like this emergency solution is a push to centralization as already pointed out by some in the comment section. Old coins wont be there with new miners so mining will become the monopoly of the oldies.

Yes its a bad solution thats why its filed under "only use in case of emergency"

Old coins wont be there with new miners? I dont understand what you are trying to say.

This is what Gavins is saying...

Something like "ignore a longer chain orphaning the current best chain if the sum(priorities of transactions included in new chain) is much less than sum(priorities of transactions in the part of the current best chain that would be orphaned)" would mean a 51% attacker would have to have both lots of hashing power AND lots of old, high-priority bitcoins to keep up a transaction-denial-of-service attack. And they'd pretty quickly run out of old, high-priority bitcoins and would be forced to either include other people's transactions or have their chain rejected.

and this what my point is...

closing the door to participation in mining a little by including some kind of "trusted" bit in participation will make more sense as participation shifts from fully chain-aware wallets to intermediaries. The best way to do this might be closing participation in the public chain lengthening process, perhaps by all the current mining pools defining a closed communications channel and thereby shutting out newcomers, or at least vetting them a little. That way, if some major player with the ability to purpose hardware to deliver a 51% attack wanted to, they'd also need to join the club. Something like American anti-trust rules could be introduced, such as, a pool may not submit more than ten of every fifty blocks. With SMPPS, a pool that got lucky and is getting close to its limit can trivially distribute work for other pools instead to avoid forced downtime.

[Remember remember the 5th of November]

Is it technically possible to change the mining protocol, so that a certain IP (solo miner or pool operator) cant have more than 49% hashpower ?

No.

#1 you cant force miners to update their client, so you are suggesting a hardfork
#2 you cant check how much hashingpower a certain IP has. You might allow only 49% of all block over a given time from a certain IP, but that would need a central place to deliver those blocks which can check where they come from. Thats not p2p, thats even more power on a single point. besides that: miners could just change the IP.

also: there allready is an emergency solution: http://gavintech.blogspot.de/2012/05/neutralizing-51-attack.html

1. You probably should've mentioned the IP change first.
2. The other information becomes irrelevant(but not useless), if you said that first.

[BitCoinDream]

Is it technically possible to change the mining protocol, so that a certain IP (solo miner or pool operator) cant have more than 49% hashpower ?

No.

#1 you cant force miners to update their client, so you are suggesting a hardfork
#2 you cant check how much hashingpower a certain IP has. You might allow only 49% of all block over a given time from a certain IP, but that would need a central place to deliver those blocks which can check where they come from. Thats not p2p, thats even more power on a single point. besides that: miners could just change the IP.

also: there allready is an emergency solution: http://gavintech.blogspot.de/2012/05/neutralizing-51-attack.html

1. You probably should've mentioned the IP change first.
2. The other information becomes irrelevant(but not useless), if you said that first.

At a certain point the n/w knows the miner's i/p. is not it ? Otherwise, how come blockchain.info is giving us the graph ? So, can we implement it in the protocol that after every block is mined, the n/w hash power distribution will be checked and any miner having X%+ will be suspended for next N no. of blocks.

Say, X = 49 & N = 6.

[notbatman]

My block eruptors are off-line. I'm all for changing the encryption to a CPU only algorithm.

[shorena]

-snip-

At a certain point the n/w knows the miner's i/p. is not it ? Otherwise, how come blockchain.info is giving us the graph ? So, can we implement it in the protocol that after every block is mined, the n/w hash power distribution will be checked and any miner having X%+ will be suspended for next N no. of blocks.

Say, X = 49 & N = 6.

No, the miner must not have a fixed IP. They could use tor a proxy or maybe even fake an IP. Blockchain.info can make the graph because currently the pools dont have to hide their IPs. But with your suggestion they have a reason to hide the IP the block is coming from.

[BitCoinDream]

-snip-

At a certain point the n/w knows the miner's i/p. is not it ? Otherwise, how come blockchain.info is giving us the graph ? So, can we implement it in the protocol that after every block is mined, the n/w hash power distribution will be checked and any miner having X%+ will be suspended for next N no. of blocks.

Say, X = 49 & N = 6.

No, the miner must not have a fixed IP. They could use tor a proxy or maybe even fake an IP. Blockchain.info can make the graph because currently the pools dont have to hide their IPs. But with your suggestion they have a reason to hide the IP the block is coming from.

I think u misread my point. We dont need their exact IP. We need the IP that represents them at a certain point of time, be it TOR or be it Proxy. At that point of time that IP should represent them and only them. Then at the protocol level the n/w may decide not to award them a block if they have X% of the total hash power.

[mrdavis]

My block eruptors are off-line. I'm all for changing the encryption to a CPU only algorithm.

Good, you're on board. Now we just need all the miners who have invested millions in ASICs to agree to make that investment worthless and we can make it happen.

[Justin00]

yeah its called making a new coin (or cloning bitcoin and changing 1 thing)

in all seriousness..
make a new coin..
called it 'india coin"
profit...

don't even need the token step in the middle

[DannyHamilton]

Then at the protocol level the n/w may decide not to award them a block if they have X% of the total hash power.

And how would you know how much hash power they have?

There are only 2 ways to get information about how much hash power a pool has.

1. They tell you. You can't exactly trust a pool to tell you honestly how much hash power they have if they are trying to use that hash power to pull off an attack.

2.  You count up the number of blocks they recently solved, and calculate an estimate based on the total blocks the network as completed in that time.  (If 144 blocks are solved in a day, and someone solved 72 of them, then they have 50% of the hash power).  You can't trust a pool to use the same bitcoin payout address for every block they solve or broadcast it from the same IP address every time if they are trying to hide what they are doing.

[BitCoinDream]

Then at the protocol level the n/w may decide not to award them a block if they have X% of the total hash power.

And how would you know how much hash power they have?

There are only 2 ways to get information about how much hash power a pool has.

1. They tell you. You can't exactly trust a pool to tell you honestly how much hash power they have if they are trying to use that hash power to pull off an attack.

2.  You count up the number of blocks they recently solved, and calculate an estimate based on the total blocks the network as completed in that time.  (If 144 blocks are solved in a day, and someone solved 72 of them, then they have 50% of the hash power).  You can't trust a pool to use the same bitcoin payout address for every block they solve or broadcast it from the same IP address every time if they are trying to hide what they are doing.

How come a pool can continuously change the public IP ? Wont the miners lose the point of contact then ? I mean, they need to know the IP and port for mining ...is not it ?

[shorena]

-snip-
How come a pool can continuously change the public IP ? Wont the miners lose the point of contact then ? I mean, they need to know the IP and port for mining ...is not it ?

No, the IP/port the miners connect to can be different from the IP the pool broadcasts the finished block from.

[newIndia]

So, there is no way we can inform all the miners that the hash power is being concentrated ?

[porcupine87]

yeah its called making a new coin (or cloning bitcoin and changing 1 thing)

in all seriousness..
make a new coin..
called it 'india coin"
profit...

don't even need the token step in the middle

Äh no, it is no new coin if you convince all to the new protocol. If it is a chance like "create 100 new bitcoins every block" there is a time x where everyone has to chance their client. This is critical. If the new protocol says "ignore longest chain with priority less than 1% of the second longest chain" which happens not often, this would be not really a problem. Only thedr 1-transaction-blocks could be a problem.

[Marlo Stanfield]

Miners are the bitcoin establishment. And the users are now the anti-establishment. It's up to the people to convince the dev team that a protocol level change is needed. And that will be quite hard, because the dev team is never going to change anything unless they are convinced it's absolutely necessary.

[Harley997]

Is it technically possible to change the mining protocol, so that a certain IP (solo miner or pool operator) cant have more than 49% hashpower ?

No.

#1 you cant force miners to update their client, so you are suggesting a hardfork
#2 you cant check how much hashingpower a certain IP has. You might allow only 49% of all block over a given time from a certain IP, but that would need a central place to deliver those blocks which can check where they come from. Thats not p2p, thats even more power on a single point. besides that: miners could just change the IP.

also: there allready is an emergency solution: http://gavintech.blogspot.de/2012/05/neutralizing-51-attack.html

It looks like this solution would solve the issue from a 51% attack only if the attacker was preventing transactions from being confirmed.

As far as I can tell it would not prevent the issues of double spending coins (an attacker could reverse a TX that they sent, spend one of the inputs from the reversed TX making the original TX invalid) and preventing others from confirming blocks.