Punish disrupting coins based on misbehavior #11052
Conversation
No, the |
| namespace WalletWasabi.WabiSabi.Backend.DoSPrevention; | ||
|
|
||
| public record DoSConfiguration( | ||
| decimal Severity, |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
It would be easier to review knowing what exactly this value means and what the range of values is.
Looking at how it is used, it seems like it's a value in BTC. If it is in BTC, then knowing the unit (calling it SeverityBtc?) is easier to review and harder to make a mistake (e.g. assigning a value in sats).
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Severity is what in the design document we call "penalty unit": #10831
How long to ban
The severity of the penalty should take into account the type of infringement, the residence and the amount involved. One possible alternative would be to introduce a penalty unit: btc/hr. For example, imagine we establish the standard severity as 10btc/hrs so, if the offending coin is 1btc then it should be banned for 10hrs, if the offending coin is 5btc then it should be banned for 2hrs.
I don't know how to pick a better name, what about SeverityInBitcoinsPerHour? It sucks but at least is more descriptive WDYT?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Btw, is it better to think in btc/hr or hr/btc?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Imho the source of truth is the source code. So it can be called Severity and it can have a comment explaining what it is. Not everything can fit into a variable.
Or one can just mention #10831 link.
SeverityInBitcoinsPerHour sounds OK to me. It's bit mouthful but it helps to read the code so I find it good.
Btw, is it better to think in btc/hr or hr/btc?
Hm, I don't know. I guess I can more easily compute in hr/btc and what we want to express is the time, so having a unit which expresses primarily the time might be good.
1 hr/btc would mean ban 1 BTC for 1 hour, but it can also mean "ban 0.5 BTC for 30 minutes"
|
I'm testing this on RegTest and it works fine. But I think we need to fine tune the banning periods. My coin (2.47 BTC) "failed" to confirm connection and now is banned for 2 days + 2 hours. Same coin with clean history (deleted Isn't this a bit harsh? |
|
@adamPetho that was a bug. Under those conditions your coin should have been banned for 16 minutes. |
|
Should the I like the idea of banning for a small amount of time because it could be a net benefit as it would make the client wait when conditions are temporarily bad, but I'm concerned about making suboptimal selections because of this, and so that clients end up using more block space. |
WalletWasabi/WabiSabi/Backend/DoSPrevention/DoSConfiguration.cs
Outdated
Show resolved
Hide resolved
| namespace WalletWasabi.WabiSabi.Backend.DoSPrevention; | ||
|
|
||
| public record DoSConfiguration( | ||
| decimal Severity, |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Imho the source of truth is the source code. So it can be called Severity and it can have a comment explaining what it is. Not everything can fit into a variable.
Or one can just mention #10831 link.
SeverityInBitcoinsPerHour sounds OK to me. It's bit mouthful but it helps to read the code so I find it good.
Btw, is it better to think in btc/hr or hr/btc?
Hm, I don't know. I guess I can more easily compute in hr/btc and what we want to express is the time, so having a unit which expresses primarily the time might be good.
1 hr/btc would mean ban 1 BTC for 1 hour, but it can also mean "ban 0.5 BTC for 30 minutes"
|
I think there is still a bug in the punishment calculation. |
|
@adamPetho why do you think there is a problem? I don't know all the details but it makes sense to ban the smaller coin for much longer than the bigger coin, that's the whole idea. |
If it's not a bug, then we are just way too harsh IMO. IMO it's a bit tough. Also, failing to confirm and failing to sign seemingly gives my coin the same banning period. (Until 1st of August) Punishing bigger coins seems to work fine. |
|
That's why this is configurable. The idea is to review the code (the logic) because the parameters are unknown and should be tuned by the administrator. If you think that the punishment for fail to confirm should be 10 times less then you can switch the If the air conditioner is cooling the room too much, that doesn't mean that it is broken but that it was configured to keep a low temperature that is uncomfortable for someone. |
|
@adamPetho @kiminuo is there something else that you need to approve this thing? |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
@adamPetho @kiminuo is there something else that you need to approve this thing?
Not from my side.
tACK on RegTest
lontivero
changed the title
According to the document [WIP] Denial of Service Protection, section: How to protect Wasabi / Banning offending coins. We need to remember offending coins in order to be able to ban a family of coins (a coin and all its descendants tree) which should inherit the punishment for
ngenerations.The document also highlights that different misbehavior should be punished differently and also that the severity should be based on the amount involved, the number of times that the coin had misbehaved and whether it comes from a previous conjoin or not.
In order to implement those features we need to store additional information like the amount used to attack the coordinator, the kind of misbehavior (failed to verify, failed to confirm, failed to sign, double spent, cheating with invalid data/crypto, and maybe other in the future).
A draft punishment calculation is included here too and works as follow:
FailToVerifyis fixed (a configurable constant in the config file)Cheatingis fixed (a configurable constant in the config file)RoundDisruptionare calculated as follow:Finally, there is a minimum time in prison that can be used to prevent banning coins for a very short period of time or to mimic previously know
notedpunishment.