ECIP-1097 Checkpointing for 51% Attack Resistance #347
Conversation
bpmckenna
force-pushed
the
51-percent-attack-prevention
branch
from
a082f56 to
7708e73
Compare
bpmckenna
force-pushed
the
51-percent-attack-prevention
branch
from
0f4fd34 to
b23eaf1
Compare
q9f
changed the title
_specs/51_attack_resistance.md
Outdated
| @@ -0,0 +1,282 @@ | |||
| --- | |||
| ecip: <ECIP number> | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
| ecip: <ECIP number> | |
| ecip: 1097 |
Please rename the file to ecip-1097.md, thanks!
_specs/51_attack_resistance.md
Outdated
| @@ -0,0 +1,282 @@ | |||
| --- | |||
| ecip: <ECIP number> | |||
| title: 51% Attack Resistance | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Please give this a less generic title, i.e., Checkpointing and Timestamping.
_specs/51_attack_resistance.md
Outdated
| ecip: <ECIP number> | ||
| title: 51% Attack Resistance | ||
| lang: en | ||
| author: Dimitris Karakostas, Radek Tkaczyk, Romain Pellerin, Brian McKenna |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
can you add contact information here? either a <mail@address> or a (@github) handle?
_specs/51_attack_resistance.md
Outdated
| title: 51% Attack Resistance | ||
| lang: en | ||
| author: Dimitris Karakostas, Radek Tkaczyk, Romain Pellerin, Brian McKenna | ||
| discussions-to: https://github.com/ethereumclassic/ECIPs/issues/348 | https://github.com/input-output-hk/ECIPs/issues/1 |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I don't think this will render on the ECIPs website. Can you decide which link you prefer? It doesn't really matter on which repository the discussion happens. Important is the reader knows where to go.
_specs/51_attack_resistance.md
Outdated
| "id": 1 | ||
| } | ||
| ``` | ||
|
|
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This proposal lacks a license, please add one or waive rights via CC-0.
_specs/51_attack_resistance.md
Outdated
| - Draft solution and the secure algorithm, or equivalent, needs to be formalised | ||
| - It may not be possible to prove a satisfactory level of security with this scheme, also to make such a scheme secure will likely increase implementation complexity | ||
|
|
||
| ##### Option 3: Auxiliary Security from an External Blockchain |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
What does an attacker prevent from creating valid timestamping transactions on Bitcoin?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Timestamping does not try to prevent anyone from timestamping blocks, it only ensures that a single chain is (irreversibly) accepted as canonical. Once the first block of a specific height is timestamped, then it acts as a checkpoint (regardless of who created it) and no party that follows the timestamping mechanism will revert it in the future (thus preventing deep chain reorgs). In other words, allowing an attacker to timestamp blocks is acceptable under this model; what is not acceptable is reorganizing a block that has been timestamped and has been adopted as the local chain.
q9f
added
editor:5 needs-review
|
Could you attend the public call later today to champion your ECIP? ref #333 |
bpmckenna
force-pushed
the
51-percent-attack-prevention
branch
from
f6079d9 to
76e5828
Compare
On this 8/28 CDC call it was noted that IOG will be holding a call to specifically talk about this ECIP in detail to the community. |
|
merging as draft |
Still lacks a license.... what do we do now? |
q9f
added
editor:7 looks-good
Draft. https://github.com/input-output-hk/ECIPs/blob/51-percent-attack-prevention/_specs/51_attack_resistance.md
Discussion. #348 | input-output-hk#1