search

ethereumclassic / ECIPs

https://ecips.ethereumclassic.org
82 stars 61 forks source link

ECIP-1096: 51% Attack protection system based on Bitcoin Merged Mining #343

Closed martinmedina closed 2 years ago

martinmedina commented 4 years ago

This issue is the discussion for the ECIP that proposes a 51% Attack protection system based on Bitcoin Merged Mining (draft)

SergioDemianLerner commented 4 years ago

The VisibilityProof proposal establishes an objective cryptoeconomic method to establish the existence of a fork. In the draft proposal we left out how the community or the node wants to react to a visible fork. I think this could be another proposal. One way to react is use PirlGuard to apply penalties to forks with no public visibility (not VisibilityProofs) of a certain time gap, or with visibility proofs with low hashrate. You can measure visibility in absolute terms or in relative terms. For example, you can establish that a blockchain fork that has 50% of the visibility hashrate of another branch is condireder hidden for PirlGuard. Or you can consider that a blockchain fork that has less than 33% of Bitcoin hashrate or has a visibility gap of 3 hours or more, is considered hidden.

TheEnthusiasticAs commented 4 years ago

Recording of the presentation: https://www.crowdcast.io/e/mqongnrs

DonaldMcIntyre commented 2 years ago

In any case, this ECIP should have proposed merge mining with the Ethereum miner base, so when Ethereum migrates to Ethereum 2.0, the miner base could continue seamlessly on ETC.

It should have been a full merged mining and not including checkpointing nor with an option to return back to independent mining.

SHA3 can be implemented a few months or years after the ETH miners fully adopt ETC. It was not a determining point for this proposal.

The most important thing for ETC is to have pure Nakamoto Consensus in the long run. But it has to be a separate and very distinct mining base than Bitcoin so users can diversify platforms completely.

ghost commented 2 years ago

In any case, this ECIP should have proposed merge mining with the Ethereum miner base, so when Ethereum migrates to Ethereum 2.0, the miner base could continue seamlessly on ETC.

That's a good idea but what's in it for Ethereum? They won't invest time and effort if they ain't have any incentive to do so...

DonaldMcIntyre commented 2 years ago

That's a good idea but what's in it for Ethereum?

It does not affect Ethereum, It is just a deal with the ETH miners that have to add some software to their mining software so they mine both chains at the same time.

ghost commented 2 years ago

In that case only the software needs to be written, distributed and promoted for adoption. Why would you want it in an ECIP?

DonaldMcIntyre commented 2 years ago

To do Bitcoin Merged Mining the ETC protocol has to be changed as per this ECIP-1096, so I assume it has to be changed also to use the Ethereum mining base.

If we check the ECIP i think we could see what changes would be needed, but imma not engineer so that is done by others.

What I meant above is that neither the Bitcoin nor Ethereum protocols would need to be changed for their miners to merge mine ETC, but ETC yes.

stevanlohja commented 2 years ago

@martinmedina @SergioDemianLerner Is this ECIP still active? otherwise, the Issue may be closed and ECIP inactive. Just a friendly ping!