Pages:
Author

Topic: Strange Timestamp Argument - page 2. (Read 312 times)

sr. member
Activity: 333
Merit: 506
July 30, 2021, 09:42:25 AM
#8
It doesn't. We consider the median timestamp of the last 11 blocks, and not all of the miners.
Cheers

Quote
There is also the point about network adjusted time, which prevents the timestamp from drifting uncontrollably; nodes wouldn't accept your block if your timestamp deviates too far from the network adjusted time. Even if there were two miners, it doesn't mean that they can set their timestamp arbitrarily. The blockchain doesn't necessarily provides for an indisputable or concrete "timestamp" but rather it provides an environment where you are required to expend far more to re organize the blocks.
If I understood Maxwell's comment correctly, let's give the hypothetical that there were only two miners on the network, and that they published blocks two years into the future:

Nodes would then wait two years before updating their own records, after their own clocks matched the published blocks, and only if there weren't conflicting blocks published before then. So, there is incentive for miners to be reasonably accurate.

Would that be correct? I've not looked into the code enough yet to know myself.
legendary
Activity: 3038
Merit: 4418
Crypto Swap Exchange
July 30, 2021, 08:47:32 AM
#7
If I remember correctly, the time stamp of a block comes from the average of all of the miners.
If there were only two miners, they could use any forward time stamp that they'd want.
And as gmaxwell said, assuming the average of the miners is correct, the block numbers becomes a near indisputable time stamp for
the transactions that come on chain.. with enough miners and within a small error.

Block chain is one of the few things that can give a near indisputable time stamp.
It doesn't. We consider the median timestamp of the last 11 blocks, and not all of the miners.

There is also the point about network adjusted time, which prevents the timestamp from drifting uncontrollably; nodes wouldn't accept your block if your timestamp deviates too far from the network adjusted time. Even if there were two miners, it doesn't mean that they can set their timestamp arbitrarily. The blockchain doesn't necessarily provides for an indisputable or concrete "timestamp" but rather it provides an environment where you are required to expend far more to re organize the blocks.
sr. member
Activity: 333
Merit: 506
July 29, 2021, 10:02:42 PM
#6
I see, thank you for that insight. But you haven't denied whether these "erroneous" timestamps are possible. So let me ask you directly:

Is it possible for miners to include erroneous timestamps, regardless of how important they are?

If yes, can these timestamps have a negative effect on the inflation schedule or locktimes?

If I remember correctly, the time stamp of a block comes from the average of all of the miners.
If there were only two miners, they could use any forward time stamp that they'd want.
And as gmaxwell said, assuming the average of the miners is correct, the block numbers becomes a near indisputable time stamp for
the transactions that come on chain.. with enough miners and within a small error.

Block chain is one of the few things that can give a near indisputable time stamp.
copper member
Activity: 37
Merit: 14
July 29, 2021, 09:57:31 PM
#5
What do you mean by erroneous?

The protocol requires that timestamps be greater than the median of the last 11 blocks and less then 2 hours into the future from your own perspective.  If you get a block more than 2 hours in the future you won't accept it until its within 2 hours.  Any timestamp that passes these criteria is valid, anything else will be ignored.

Quote
If yes, can these timestamps have a negative effect on the inflation schedule or locktimes?
Time based locktimes aren't based on the time on the current block anymore, but instead are based on the median of the last 11 blocks (the lowest timestamp the block could have).

The allowed 2 hour difference on the blocks timestamp allows a one time 2hr/2week = 0.5% difference in inflation, -- utterly irrelevant and well below the noise.


Once again I have learned something. Happy days, thank you.
staff
Activity: 4242
Merit: 8672
July 29, 2021, 09:45:20 PM
#4
What do you mean by erroneous?

The protocol requires that timestamps be greater than the median of the last 11 blocks and less then 2 hours into the future from your own perspective.  If you get a block more than 2 hours in the future you won't accept it until its within 2 hours.  Any timestamp that passes these criteria is valid, anything else will be ignored.

Quote
If yes, can these timestamps have a negative effect on the inflation schedule or locktimes?
Time based locktimes aren't based on the time on the current block anymore, but instead are based on the median of the last 11 blocks (the lowest timestamp the block could have).

The allowed 2 hour difference on the blocks timestamp allows a one time 2hr/2week = 0.5% difference in inflation, -- utterly irrelevant and well below the noise.
copper member
Activity: 37
Merit: 14
July 29, 2021, 09:29:44 PM
#3
Bitcoin's requirement for accurate time is *extremely* loose.  A sundial and an almanac is pretty much sufficient.


Quote
People talk as if blockchains can function as trustless clocks, but this is simply not the case.
It's likely that the person you're quoting is confusing multiple different uses of the word 'clock'.

Bitcoin only has a timestamp in it at all to keep the inflation schedule on track and make the infrequently used time-relative locktimes work.  If we didn't care about those features it could just exclude the timestamp entirely-- and it would still be a clock, one that just ticks in the form of blocks.

I see, thank you for that insight. But you haven't denied whether these "erroneous" timestamps are possible. So let me ask you directly:

Is it possible for miners to include erroneous timestamps, regardless of how important they are?

If yes, can these timestamps have a negative effect on the inflation schedule or locktimes?
staff
Activity: 4242
Merit: 8672
July 29, 2021, 09:16:24 PM
#2
Bitcoin's requirement for accurate time is *extremely* loose.  A sundial and an almanac is pretty much sufficient.


Quote
People talk as if blockchains can function as trustless clocks, but this is simply not the case.
It's likely that the person you're quoting is confusing multiple different uses of the word 'clock'.

Bitcoin only has a timestamp in it at all to keep the inflation schedule on track and make the infrequently used time-relative locktimes work.  If we didn't care about those features it could just exclude the timestamp entirely-- and it would still be a clock, one that just ticks in the form of blocks.
copper member
Activity: 37
Merit: 14
July 29, 2021, 08:13:40 PM
#1
I found someone trying to argue there is a timestamp vulnerability in Bitcoin. The post seemed off to me, but I don't have the technical vocabulary or experience to formulate a rebuttal. Can a dev or someone with intimate knowledge please address this in detail? Here is the post:

Quote
The idea of Bitcoin is that anyone who has knowledge of the protocol can log on and determine the correct state of the ledger trustlessly. I ask my peers for the current blockchain and choose the one that is both valid and has the most work.

However, this ideal is not entirely achieved. A block is only valid if its timestamp is close enough to the actual time. This means that malicious miners can confirm blocks with erroneous timestamps, and there would be no way for someone logging on for the first time to detect that this has happened. This is in stark contrast to the case of malicious miners confirming blocks with erroneous transactions, for these erroneous transactions can be detected using only the information internal to the blockchain.

Malicious miners can validate a block with an erroneous timestamp. If they are in the majority, their chain will have the most work. Anyone logging onto the network for the first time will not be able to detect that the time stamps are erroneous. There may be nodes running with no downtime who claim that the time stamps are indeed erroneous, but there is no way to confirm who is telling the truth.

The implication is precisely that the timestamps may have been forged and there is no way to detect this trustlessly. People talk as if blockchains can function as trustless clocks, but this is simply not the case.
Pages:
Jump to: