Merged mining + timetravel fix @19200 - must upgrade

smoothie
Posts: 34
Joined: Sun Jul 10, 2011 4:45 am
os: linux

Re: Merged mining block number

Post by smoothie »

doublec wrote:So luke-jr who runs the Eligius bitcoin pool claims that there is a security exploit in the merged mining code:
17:02 < luke-jr> bliket_: will you still like me if I exploit the security hole in merged mining? <.<
...
17:06 < doublec> luke-jr: have you notified vinced of what you think the security issue is?
17:07 < luke-jr> doublec: no, I prefer to exploit it
He's also mentioned it on IRC in the past. Vince, has he got in touch with you about this or is he trolling?
I suggest we still test the code at least for the next couple of weeks. Then any claims to or of an "exploit" can be verified non-existent.

I have tested with nodemaster's pool thus far.

nodemaster
Posts: 172
Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2011 12:46 pm
os: linux

Re: Merged mining block number

Post by nodemaster »

doublec wrote:So luke-jr who runs the Eligius bitcoin pool claims that there is a security exploit in the merged mining code:
17:02 < luke-jr> bliket_: will you still like me if I exploit the security hole in merged mining? <.<
...
17:06 < doublec> luke-jr: have you notified vinced of what you think the security issue is?
17:07 < luke-jr> doublec: no, I prefer to exploit it
He's also mentioned it on IRC in the past. Vince, has he got in touch with you about this or is he trolling?
I dont' know luke-jr or if there is a security issue or not. Furthermore I don't know the rest of the conversation. But the statement from luke-js just tastes like FUD :| Very sad and unbelievable that he runs a well known pool with this attitude...
Access .bit domains with Firefox in 4 easy steps: https://masterpool.eu/proxy
MasterPool Namecoin Mining Pool

cosurgi
Posts: 19
Joined: Thu Aug 04, 2011 12:12 pm
os: linux

Re: Merged mining block number

Post by cosurgi »

So, what is currently set in code the "Merged mining block number" ? is it 24000 ? (based on http://dot-bit.org/forum/viewtopic.php?p=1297#p1297 )

What version of namecoin must be installed on 51% of network power in order for merged mining to win?

is it ?

Code: Select all

git clone https://github.com/vinced/namecoin.git
git checkout v0.3.21.91
or is it:

Code: Select all

git clone https://github.com/vinced/namecoin.git
git checkout v0.3.24.51-rc1
I heard people talking about RC3, but I'm unable to locate that. Does it exist?

What version of bitcoind must be installed in order to cooperate with mining proxy, is it?

Code: Select all

git clone https://github.com/vinced/namecoin.git
git checkout mergedmine
Thanks for your help

zamgo
Posts: 32
Joined: Tue Jul 19, 2011 9:09 am

Re: Merged mining block number

Post by zamgo »

As of a few days ago, the master branch of https://github.com/vinced/namecoin/ has the latest namecoin-merged stuff.

RC3 is: https://github.com/vinced/namecoin/tree/nc0.3.24.53-rc3

So far, switchover block # is 24000. See: https://github.com/vinced/namecoin/blob ... in.cpp#L94

For bitcoind-merged: https://github.com/vinced/namecoin/tree/mergedmine

cosurgi
Posts: 19
Joined: Thu Aug 04, 2011 12:12 pm
os: linux

Re: Merged mining block number

Post by cosurgi »

thanks for your reply.

Can we set this block number to be lower? Like - a week from now?

19500 seems like a good proposal...

nodemaster
Posts: 172
Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2011 12:46 pm
os: linux

Re: Merged mining block number

Post by nodemaster »

cosurgi wrote:thanks for your reply.

Can we set this block number to be lower? Like - a week from now?

19500 seems like a good proposal...
Not for non Testnet client. We need to test before we can start. For Testnet have a look at: http://dot-bit.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=5&t=269 Zamgo proposed a simple patch, that sets the block number to zero for testnet.
Access .bit domains with Firefox in 4 easy steps: https://masterpool.eu/proxy
MasterPool Namecoin Mining Pool

nodemaster
Posts: 172
Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2011 12:46 pm
os: linux

Re: Merged mining block number

Post by nodemaster »

nodemaster wrote:
cosurgi wrote:thanks for your reply.

Can we set this block number to be lower? Like - a week from now?

19500 seems like a good proposal...
Not for non Testnet client. We need to test before we can decide to start earlier. For Testnet have a look at: http://dot-bit.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=5&t=269 Zamgo proposed a simple patch, that sets the block number to zero for testnet.
Access .bit domains with Firefox in 4 easy steps: https://masterpool.eu/proxy
MasterPool Namecoin Mining Pool

cosurgi
Posts: 19
Joined: Thu Aug 04, 2011 12:12 pm
os: linux

Re: Merged mining block number

Post by cosurgi »

nodemaster wrote:Not for non Testnet client. We need to test before we can start. For Testnet have a look at: http://dot-bit.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=5&t=269 Zamgo proposed a simple patch, that sets the block number to zero for testnet.
ok, thanks.

I have another question: how does mm-proxy affect communication between python based frontends and bitcoind?

Ideally if commands were exactly the same (no need to change python frontends) to communicate with bitcoind. Like: simply forward all traffic to bitcoind.

Then some extra commands would be added to communicate with namecoind.

By this way mm-proxy could be just a drop-in replacement for mining. And namecoins would be already mined, nothing would break, and then the python frontend would be extended to communicate with namecoind.

JohnDoe
Posts: 94
Joined: Sat May 28, 2011 8:46 pm
os: linux

Re: Merged mining block number

Post by JohnDoe »

doublec wrote:So luke-jr who runs the Eligius bitcoin pool claims that there is a security exploit in the merged mining code:
17:02 < luke-jr> bliket_: will you still like me if I exploit the security hole in merged mining? <.<
...
17:06 < doublec> luke-jr: have you notified vinced of what you think the security issue is?
17:07 < luke-jr> doublec: no, I prefer to exploit it
He's also mentioned it on IRC in the past. Vince, has he got in touch with you about this or is he trolling?
I made a thread on the Bitcoin forum calling out luke-jr on this and he implied that he was taken out of context so I guess it was just FUD. Can't give you a link unfortunately because the thread got deleted.

vinced
Posts: 63
Joined: Wed May 18, 2011 1:16 am

Re: Merged mining block number

Post by vinced »

Cross posted from http://dot-bit.org/forum/viewtopic.php?p=1581#p1581 :
I have version nc0.3.24.54-rc4 up. This version fixes an exploitable bug where the same work can be used to submit multiple auxiliary blocks, by adding multiple auxiliary trees to the parent coinbase. This version only allows one auxiliary chain tree. Someone should ask luke-jr if this is the bug he found.

This version also sets the starting merged mining block on testnet to zero and advances the client version.

It would be useful if the namecoin block explorer showed the block nVersion. This would allow us to see what % of the mining power is using the merged mining patches.
!v | Namecoin founder | https://dot-bit.org/

Post Reply