February 17, 2019, 05:47:19 pm

Author Topic: Possible disruption by rogue client? The mysterious 249's  (Read 1378 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Aurophilicity

  • Gold Miner
  • ****
  • Posts: 269
  • Karma: +21/-0
  • Metallophilic Interaction
    • View Profile
Possible disruption by rogue client? The mysterious 249's
« on: June 22, 2016, 04:51:02 am »
Let me first ask you if I'm getting this right:

GLD uses a 45-second window for the timestamp into the future
whereas BTC has a two-hour tolerance.
The timestamps must be in chronological order - unlike BTC.
The GLD clients synchronise their internal clocks with some tolerance against the local system clocks.
BTC doesn't have such a mechanism.

If my assumptions are right, wouldn't it be possible to programme a client that adds up to 45 seconds to the timestamp
when it has found a new block?
Wouldn't this bar other clients from submitting their blocks especially when this rogue client has a high hashrate?

I'm asking this because I've observed some weird behaviour in the last two weeks or so:

Every now and then, a string of blocks with a size of 249 shows up in the block-explorer
unless there is more than one transaction per block.
The age of the newest of these blocks is frequently '0 minutes 0 seconds.'
During such a period, mining only produces orphans.
Transactions between clients are not affected whatsoever.

Am I on the right track?
Observations and theory show that, on average, 28% of the binding-energy in aurophilic interaction can be attributed to relativistic expansion of the gold d-orbitals.   GLD E5CUw66jvPSGirggrek8vagARNM2ZQErEN

Offline Aurophilicity

  • Gold Miner
  • ****
  • Posts: 269
  • Karma: +21/-0
  • Metallophilic Interaction
    • View Profile
Re: Possible disruption by rogue client? The mysterious 249's
« Reply #1 on: June 22, 2016, 12:07:59 pm »
Look what happens after block 438508 when the atta...susp...activity of interest abruptly stops:

http://gld.cryptocoinexplorer.com/blockrange?start=438500&range=30
« Last Edit: July 09, 2016, 02:54:59 am by Aurophilicity »
Observations and theory show that, on average, 28% of the binding-energy in aurophilic interaction can be attributed to relativistic expansion of the gold d-orbitals.   GLD E5CUw66jvPSGirggrek8vagARNM2ZQErEN

Offline akumaburn

  • Lead Developer
  • DevTeam
  • *****
  • Posts: 320
  • Karma: +44/-0
    • View Profile
Re: Possible disruption by rogue client? The mysterious 249's
« Reply #2 on: June 22, 2016, 12:14:42 pm »
Let me first ask you if I'm getting this right:

GLD uses a 45-second window for the timestamp into the future
whereas BTC has a two-hour tolerance.
The timestamps must be in chronological order - unlike BTC.
The GLD clients synchronise their internal clocks with some tolerance against the local system clocks.
BTC doesn't have such a mechanism.

If my assumptions are right, wouldn't it be possible to programme a client that adds up to 45 seconds to the timestamp
when it has found a new block?
Wouldn't this bar other clients from submitting their blocks especially when this rogue client has a high hashrate?

I'm asking this because I've observed some weird behaviour in the last two weeks or so:

Every now and then, a string of blocks with a size of 249 shows up in the block-explorer
unless there is more than one transaction per block.
The age of the newest of these blocks is frequently '0 minutes 0 seconds.'
During such a period, mining only produces orphans.
Transactions between clients are not affected whatsoever.

Am I on the right track?

Hi,

GLD uses a 45-second window for the timestamp into the future - This is true

We also use a 2 minute and 45 second window for timestamps into the past. Under the 51% defense algorithm even if you manage to exploit this somehow you wouldn't be able to get 6 blocks in a row needed for double spending.


whereas BTC has a two-hour tolerance. - Also true, they're even more vulnerable, only defense BTC has is their extremely large network hashrate

The timestamps must be in chronological order - unlike BTC. - This is not true, the only reason it may seem like it is because our difficulty algorithm (Golden River) stays near the maximum speed allowed by our 51% defense algorithm. Thus it is merely a co-incidence.. Its very possible to have some time stamps that are not in chronological order

The GLD clients synchronise their internal clocks with some tolerance against the local system clocks. - This is not true, GLD will not synchronize with system time, but rather will record time-zone prior to mining. For this reason it is necessary that if you wish to mine GLD, your system time be within 45 seconds of NETWORK TIME(which is a median of the time of clients on the network).



If my assumptions are right, wouldn't it be possible to programme a client that adds up to 45 seconds to the timestamp
when it has found a new block? - It is possible to do this and we recommend doing so to all pools

Wouldn't this bar other clients from submitting their blocks especially when this rogue client has a high hashrate?  No because everyone else can do the same thing(not to mention that by default system time's across the world are usually off by a few dozen seconds anyways), and the 51% defense algorithm bars, one client from submitting more than 5 block every 10 minutes

The details of our 51% defense algorithm are complex and not covered fully in the old lamen white paper.. I suggest you take a look at the following function:

bool ProcessBlock(CNode* pfrom, CBlock* pblock)

in main.cpp, for details.




« Last Edit: June 22, 2016, 12:23:26 pm by akumaburn »
Want to donate to the Development Team?

GLD:
DztaVPtUd2M5TwfifBUaq5bLrAscYeMbyd

Offline akumaburn

  • Lead Developer
  • DevTeam
  • *****
  • Posts: 320
  • Karma: +44/-0
    • View Profile
Re: Possible disruption by rogue client? The mysterious 249's
« Reply #3 on: June 22, 2016, 12:19:55 pm »
Look what happens after block 438508 when the ata...susp...activity of interest abruptly stops:

http://gld.cryptocoinexplorer.com/blockrange?start=438500&range=30

If you look at the payouts from the address, it looks like a mining pool to me.
Want to donate to the Development Team?

GLD:
DztaVPtUd2M5TwfifBUaq5bLrAscYeMbyd

Offline Aurophilicity

  • Gold Miner
  • ****
  • Posts: 269
  • Karma: +21/-0
  • Metallophilic Interaction
    • View Profile
Re: Possible disruption by rogue client? The mysterious 249's
« Reply #4 on: June 22, 2016, 12:41:24 pm »
Thanks, akumaburn. :)
Observations and theory show that, on average, 28% of the binding-energy in aurophilic interaction can be attributed to relativistic expansion of the gold d-orbitals.   GLD E5CUw66jvPSGirggrek8vagARNM2ZQErEN

Offline tadspoles

  • Legendary
  • *****
  • Posts: 629
  • Karma: +46/-0
    • View Profile
Re: Possible disruption by rogue client? The mysterious 249's
« Reply #5 on: June 22, 2016, 05:07:18 pm »
Akumaburn is the man!