pull down to refresh
0 sats \ 1 reply \ @0xB10C OP 11 Oct \ parent \ on: Additional context for "DoS due to inv-to-send sets growing too large" bitcoin
good bot
Earlier this year, I wrote about the mutated blocks ViaBTC is sending out: https://b10c.me/observations/10-viabtc-blocks-without-witness-data/
I think it's important to note that this is a pre-release in form of the first release canidate (thats what rc1 means). These binaries should be used to test the release, not necessarily for production deployments as they can still contain bugs.
Companies or projects relying on Bitcoin Core might want to update a part of their infrastructure to v28.0rc1 now (and other release candidates later) to be sure they are compatible with the release. The hope is that bugs and other problems are catched with the release candidates and not the final release!
130 sats \ 0 replies \ @0xB10C OP 12 Jul \ parent \ on: mining pool game theory during forks bitcoin
- Antpool does not want to be "liable" for a 2+ block chainsplit that could appear as an attempt to reorg blocks (its a way to guard reputation as an "honest" pool)
I don't think AntPool mining on it's own block could easily cause a 2+ block chainsplit. If they find a block on their own block, their side of the split wins by having the most work chain. All other pools will switch to it no matter where they mined before.
- Antpool is using the Tit for Tat Strategy (its a long-term strategy of mutual cooperation)
In this case, the Tit for Tat Strategy isn't working out against Foundry. It's known that Foundry will switch and mine on their own block (see e.g. https://x.com/0xB10C/status/1803082081385246738).
Do you have a theory why a pool would mine on the competing fork?
My guess is that they are either not aware of the game theory (doubtful as they've been in the industry for quite long), or they don't care enough. After all, there's maybe one or two forks a month involving AntPool, and even fewer ones where they end up loosing due to not mining on their own.
the transaction hash is customized to have the tx author's twitter handle and a bunch of leading zeroes
This part is incorrect :) I only learned about this transaction from mononauts tweet. While I did create
b10c007c60e14f9d087e0291d4d0c7869697c6681d979c6639dbd960792b4d41 a while ago, I'm not related to this transaction. I obviously can't prove it..fork.observer shows forks and stale blocks
There is a list here: https://miningpool.observer/missing and a rather noisy RSS
feed https://miningpool.observer/missing/feed.xml.
There's also an RSS feed with showing OFAC sanctioned transactions here: https://miningpool.observer/template-and-block/sanctioned-feed.xml (currently empty because I switched to a new database). In the past it alerted me about F2Pool censoring OFAC sanctioned transactions. See https://b10c.me/observations/08-missing-sanctioned-transactions/
The P2SH address
38fEX6RbBBMmpu3nbbuULku1xyrrzqqqnE is both:-
a 1-of-2 multisig
-
a 1-or-2 multisig
The private keys that can spent from it are
1 and 2.I was curious how the new OCEAN block templates compare in terms of fees. Here's a quick-and-dirty client-side tool that connects the OCEAN web sockets and plots the fees in the template: https://0xb10c.github.io/ocean-xyz-templates/
Nym
0xB10C
Summary of What You’re building:
A FOSS Bitcoin Core based passive P2P networking tool called peer-observer. It hooks into tracepoint's in Bitcoin Core to extract, e.g., P2P messages sent and received, connections opened, closed, evicted, … The nodes are essentially well-behaving honey-pots with a lot of monitoring.
This is all already implemented and running. However, don't have a public demo of it at the moment. Happy to share something with interested people. I currently have 10 nodes running, dispersed around the globe.
What Kind of Help Are You Looking For?
Looking for someone interested in Bitcoin P2P network level attacks that wants to build some sort of (real-time) anomaly detection with the data the tool is producing. For example, detection of inbound connection flooder's like LinkingLion: An entity linking Bitcoin transactions to IPs?.
The project is mainly written in Rust, but I've taken care that Python scripts should work too. The infrastructure is Nix+NixOS.
Purpose
For fun and to make the Bitcoin network more secure. Not for profit. I have a grant to work on this (and more). I can't pay you for the work, though you might find someone else willing to give you a grant or similar for the work (I can help, but no promises!).
How to Contact You
Comment below, or send me a DM / email. You'll find ways to contact me on b10c.me.
yes, for today's block that was about 7.7mBTC or $300 USD (based on data from my miningpool-observer. mempool-space suggests it was closer to 0.3 BTC but I think that number is off.
It seems to me they aren't mining transactions with larger OP_RETURN outputs, likely because they are running Bitcoin Knots. That's a weird way to say "Hello World" as a pool which has a big "Bitcoin is no longer censorship-resistant, and mining centralisation endangers its security too. It's time to fix that.". IMHO just use the default Bitcoin Core template...*.
*. they're obviously free to mine what ever they want, but all the "block template transparency" blabla could have, from the start, included that they diverge from the (current) default mempool policy.
548 sats \ 0 replies \ @0xB10C OP 21 Nov 2023 \ parent \ on: Six OFAC-sanctioned transactions missing bitcoin
The transactions aren't missing from the ledger/blockchain. I have the txids in the footnotes - feel free to look them up. They all have been mined, just not by the first pool that could have mined them.
@theariard, thanks for all the FOSS work you've done! I wish you the best for your future business endeavors, short and long-term. Though, I hope to see you back in FOSS at some point in the future :)
On a different note, I recently came across your RFC: Introducing Watchdog, a cross-layer anomaly detection module again and took some notes of things I want to implement actual anomaly detection and alerting for. I've been collecting some of the data - just not really doing anything with it yet.
Based on what I know, I assume they are building their own in-house mining pool implementation to replace the current implementation which is not in-house. Probably to save on licensing/contracting costs?
There's no need to keep the whole UTXO set in memory. Most of it is rarely read from disk during normal operation. The
dbcache (i.e. UTXO set cache) is 450MB by default and you usually only want to increase that for IBD performance.10% of transactions spent UTXOs created in the same block (https://transactionfee.info/charts/transactions-spending-newly-created-utxos) and a big chunk of UTXOs is spent after a few blocks anyway