THELOGICALINDIAN - Researchers say that backfire amateur adequate the blockchain By enabling counterattacks hashrate marketplaces could abash attackers from attempting an advance in the aboriginal place
MIT Media Lab’s Digital Currency Initiative has delved into a contempo advance on Bitcoin Gold and apparent counterattacks in which miners put the blockchain aback on its aboriginal course.
James Lovejoy, who publicized the advance beforehand this year, appear a Medium post on the affair today, co-authored by MIT DCI advisers Dan Moroz and Neha Narula.
Counterattacks on Bitcoin Gold
In January and February, attackers carried out a alternation of attacks on Bitcoin Gold.
Those attacks complex alternation reorganizations (reorgs), bifold spending, and 51% attacks, all of which crave the antagonist to apply a ample bulk of mining hashpower.
The MIT DCI team, which has been ecology attacks on several proof-of-work blockchains, appear those attacks about at the time. However, the accumulation has back credible “retaliation games” that were not credible at the time.
The advisers explain:
“It started as a archetypal attack, as a transaction was antipodal in a double-spent, but afresh that double-spend was itself reversed, with the aboriginal transaction accurate again. On February 8th the antagonist and counterattacker went aback and alternating four times over the advance of 2.5 hours.”
Ultimately, the counterattacker won, invalidated the bifold spend, and adequate the aboriginal chain.
The aggregation additionally empiric two beneath “one-shot” counterattacks on Feb. 9 and 11. Those counterattacks adequate Bitcoin Gold’s aboriginal blockchain as well.
Alternate Explanations
At aboriginal glance, it appears that miners agitated out counterattacks to advance Bitcoin Gold’s aboriginal chain, but MIT DCI advisers brainstorm that this may not be the case.
Instead, a distinct amateur may accept been on both abandon of the attack. For example, an barter or merchant account may accept been testing the backbone of the blockchain. This antecedent is accurate by the actuality that one argue had no bifold spends, suggesting that accumulation was not the motive.
Alternately, the counterattacker may not accept been attempting to restore Bitcoin Gold to its aboriginal condition; instead, the counterattacker may accept advised to abduct the accolade for themselves.
Finally, abstruse errors, such as a arrangement partition, a software bug, or accidental adventitious could accept acquired reorgs to appear naturally—though advisers say that best of these cases are unlikely.
Of course, the counterattacks may be absolutely what they assume to be.
NiceHash May Not Be to Blame
NiceHash is a account that allows users to hire hashpower, which is active in 51% attacks. The account was amenable for the hashpower acclimated in an recent advance on Vertcoin, for example.
MIT DCI advisers agenda that NiceHash and added hashrate marketplaces affectation a blackmail to proof-of-work blockchains, and that NiceHash offers abundant hashpower to advance Bitcoin Gold.
However, the analysis aggregation says that they accept not apparent “conclusive evidence” that the hashpower acclimated to advance Bitcoin Gold originated from NiceHash. That affirmation is blocked due to the actuality that Bitcoin Gold’s hashrate and amount alter consistently alike back no advance is underway.
Researchers add that NiceHash and agnate casework may alike be beneficial: by enabling counterattacks, hashrate marketplaces could abash attackers from attempting an advance in the aboriginal place.
The advisers conclude, though, that aerial costs are “still the [most] important deterrent” back it comes to preventing attacks that aim to demolition a blockchain.
