Topic: Very very simple yet powerful 51% solution - page 3. (Read 3859 times)

Nothing.
Same way I can create a node where I have all 21 million coins.

It's a question of consensus, if the majority of Bitcoiners want a decentrallized Bitcoin during an attack that BECOMES the real Bitcoin.

Pools are not blocked. Its just their blocks that will not be accepted if they make all the blocks.

Its not a blacklist.

The reason it is okay to have "untrusted" blocks in the chain is that you don't care as long as you don't have frequent rollbacks and your transaction goes through.

This is why this solution ONLY cares if ALL the blocks are from an untrusted source.

What's to prevent an attacker from running a full node that has them added to their "trust list"?

This could mean the entire network could prevent a pool from getting blocks just because they don't like them, unless we assume these protocols only come into place if the block finder has 51% of the network hashrate?

Hi.

I am the "technical speaker" for the Danish Bitcoin Foundation. I am also currently programming my own project directly interfacing with the Bitcoin protocol.

This is my proposed solution to 51% attacks, centralization issues, selfish mining and any such. This simple solution takes care of them all.
Someone could do this very quickly and I am willing to personally pledge 2000$ towards it.

The reason I don't do it is that I'm already swamped with two "public good" Bitcoin projects, a full time job and a family.

Layman's terms
1. Establish a way mining pools can document they made a block - pool IDs.
2. Let individual full nodes add or remove pool IDs to/from a "trust list".
3. A full node will not relay untrusted/unknown blocks  for ~1 hour IF 40% of the past 100 blocks were from unknown/untrusted pool IDs/ +50% from one single trusted ID.
4. A full node will not accept blocks if 99% of past 100 blocks were from unknown/untrusted pool IDs.
(exact percentages do not matter that much)

What it will do
Basically as the network is now it wouldn't do anything. Everything would be fine.

Once ~10% of full nodes upgrade miners would have an incentive to ID their blocks - simply for faster block propagation.

IF the network however came under attack such as:
A Many targeted double spends by a corrupt pool.
B Selfish mining escalation.
C No transactions in blocks.

THEN the solution would elegantly force the attacker to include at least some few blocks that could not be rolled back by the attacker and that contained transactions.
If the attacker DID not allow for other's blocks the attackers blocks would simply be ignored.

Once a "trusted" block was found the attacker can work on that and again make 99 blocks, so this is NOT a white/black list solution.

Ok so there's a catch right? It's a hard fork? Slow? Bullshit extra chains? Exotic crypto? Tatiana coin infusion? (no offense Tatiana)
No, none of the above.
There are literally ZERO drawbacks.

Technical detail
1. The protocol allows for a coinbase transaction script to have arbitrary data.
2. We can use this to let pools sign blocks with an "ID".
3. A pool would sign say the hashes of non coinbase transactions with their ID (w. SECP256k1).
4. Put the signature bytes in the coinbase transaction script.
5. This should be easy to put and read in blocks.
6. Only the pool has the PRIVATE_ID_KEY and the contents of the block are now signed.
7. The ID_PUBKEY can then be used as an ID.
8. No changes in protocol, zip, nada. Just an optional check for certain data.
9. Add the largest 20 pools to the trust list and no one ever has to talk about 51% again.
10. Its totally organic too, anyone can start a new pool and create an ID for themselves. Even botnets are still in, they just can't take over.

What it would really do:
Skeptic: I heard Bitcoin is under attack and will die?
You: Naw that can't happen because miners would then kill the coin and then... bla bla bla incentives... maybe ... bla bla bla and besides tree chains could fix it.... bla bla.
Skeptic: Huh?

--> To this -->

Skeptic: I heard Bitcoin is under attack and will die?
You: Nodes would reject that and kill it because all blocks would come from like the same dude.
Skeptic: Ah ok... is it still a ponzi though?