diff options
| author | Mike Hearn <mike@plan99.net> | 2015-02-12 15:53:08 +0100 |
|---|---|---|
| committer | bitcoindev <bitcoindev@gnusha.org> | 2015-02-12 14:53:18 +0000 |
| commit | 11baa0ee5958076f196964e453530122edec8f3e (patch) | |
| tree | 943bf4734be76c4d2554a3386a887b08de39fb61 | |
| parent | 8bf1ef389207d203313fe831e202782de148795f (diff) | |
| download | pi-bitcoindev-11baa0ee5958076f196964e453530122edec8f3e.tar.gz pi-bitcoindev-11baa0ee5958076f196964e453530122edec8f3e.zip | |
Re: [Bitcoin-development] replace-by-fee v0.10.0rc4
| -rw-r--r-- | fb/fc1edc7c1a299d3e5f309e59b170c60fda2fd1 | 190 |
1 files changed, 190 insertions, 0 deletions
diff --git a/fb/fc1edc7c1a299d3e5f309e59b170c60fda2fd1 b/fb/fc1edc7c1a299d3e5f309e59b170c60fda2fd1 new file mode 100644 index 000000000..b892b4abe --- /dev/null +++ b/fb/fc1edc7c1a299d3e5f309e59b170c60fda2fd1 @@ -0,0 +1,190 @@ +Received: from sog-mx-1.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.191] + helo=mx.sourceforge.net) + by sfs-ml-1.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76) + (envelope-from <mh.in.england@gmail.com>) id 1YLv8o-0007ZS-JS + for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; + Thu, 12 Feb 2015 14:53:18 +0000 +Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-1.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of gmail.com + designates 74.125.82.52 as permitted sender) + client-ip=74.125.82.52; envelope-from=mh.in.england@gmail.com; + helo=mail-wg0-f52.google.com; +Received: from mail-wg0-f52.google.com ([74.125.82.52]) + by sog-mx-1.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128) + (Exim 4.76) id 1YLv8m-0005vm-42 + for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; + Thu, 12 Feb 2015 14:53:18 +0000 +Received: by mail-wg0-f52.google.com with SMTP id x12so729692wgg.11 + for <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>; + Thu, 12 Feb 2015 06:53:10 -0800 (PST) +MIME-Version: 1.0 +X-Received: by 10.180.78.4 with SMTP id x4mr6987043wiw.86.1423752788415; Thu, + 12 Feb 2015 06:53:08 -0800 (PST) +Sender: mh.in.england@gmail.com +Received: by 10.194.188.11 with HTTP; Thu, 12 Feb 2015 06:53:08 -0800 (PST) +In-Reply-To: <CAAt2M1_dot=3vU6DbvOMc1F9LN7_JWd=oMr=KiBhNy0WEpTWUw@mail.gmail.com> +References: <20150212064719.GA6563@savin.petertodd.org> + <CANEZrP2uVT_UqJbzyQcEbiS78T68Jj2cH7OGXv5QtYiCwArDdA@mail.gmail.com> + <CAAt2M1-eogn58zC_eAs4qD4-1GaY4wtuXLoSJ-UEZGKgdXGFyg@mail.gmail.com> + <CANEZrP2YJxwVEocNXjc5cadcq6Wwed7vTLh_4zEX2ct7bTCz5g@mail.gmail.com> + <CAAt2M19UinurnQQVJWbR_UcSmCBsdFyksnhTfL4ESDMfny+UQQ@mail.gmail.com> + <CANEZrP3+zpMsccnR1e48iwMyQFtP2yNZwseRvCmHrhZFQymycA@mail.gmail.com> + <CAAt2M1_dot=3vU6DbvOMc1F9LN7_JWd=oMr=KiBhNy0WEpTWUw@mail.gmail.com> +Date: Thu, 12 Feb 2015 15:53:08 +0100 +X-Google-Sender-Auth: nf1bLvrWlRu-byfD0IiGakSN4oM +Message-ID: <CANEZrP0z3KG-d+91YDe-jj2d3WWPOrVqCStzLoHpNP=RgXpnyA@mail.gmail.com> +From: Mike Hearn <mike@plan99.net> +To: Natanael <natanael.l@gmail.com> +Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=f46d043bdf5e339c0c050ee547e5 +X-Spam-Score: -0.5 (/) +X-Spam-Report: Spam Filtering performed by mx.sourceforge.net. + See http://spamassassin.org/tag/ for more details. + -1.5 SPF_CHECK_PASS SPF reports sender host as permitted sender for + sender-domain + 0.0 FREEMAIL_FROM Sender email is commonly abused enduser mail provider + (mh.in.england[at]gmail.com) + -0.0 SPF_PASS SPF: sender matches SPF record + 1.0 HTML_MESSAGE BODY: HTML included in message + 0.1 DKIM_SIGNED Message has a DKIM or DK signature, + not necessarily valid + -0.1 DKIM_VALID Message has at least one valid DKIM or DK signature + 0.0 AWL AWL: Adjusted score from AWL reputation of From: address +X-Headers-End: 1YLv8m-0005vm-42 +Cc: Bitcoin Dev <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net> +Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] replace-by-fee v0.10.0rc4 +X-BeenThere: bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net +X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 +Precedence: list +List-Id: <bitcoin-development.lists.sourceforge.net> +List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development>, + <mailto:bitcoin-development-request@lists.sourceforge.net?subject=unsubscribe> +List-Archive: <http://sourceforge.net/mailarchive/forum.php?forum_name=bitcoin-development> +List-Post: <mailto:bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net> +List-Help: <mailto:bitcoin-development-request@lists.sourceforge.net?subject=help> +List-Subscribe: <https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development>, + <mailto:bitcoin-development-request@lists.sourceforge.net?subject=subscribe> +X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 12 Feb 2015 14:53:18 -0000 + +--f46d043bdf5e339c0c050ee547e5 +Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 + +> +> > So you're just arguing that a notary is different to a miner, without +> spelling out exactly why. +> +I'm afraid I still don't understand why you think notaries would build long +term businesses but miners wouldn't, in this model. + +I think you are saying because notaries have identity, brand awareness and +because they have big up front bonds, that means they will be trustworthy. + +Well, sure. It's the same model governments use and is why being a money +transmitter in the USA is so difficult: you need to put up large sums of +money as collateral and have your fingerprints taken 48 times. *Then* you +can start advertising to get customers! + +The reason mining is such a nice model is it doesn't have these sorts of +requirements. + +> As notaries can be small operations ..... [snip] ...... (almost every +> large organization in the world have some unallocated funds somewhere). +> +Which is it? Are notaries small operations or large operations? + +I think exploring new consensus models with semi-trusted notaries is +interesting, but it's not Bitcoin. + +> Depending on that which isn't guaranteed is baaaad, and breaking other +> people's assumptions is by itself NOT an attack if there never was a +> guarantee or even as little as an implicit understanding it is safe. +> +Please don't try and apply this logic in the real world :( Rephrased: + +"*That's a nice house. I noticed it's made of wood. I'm going to start +fires until it burns down, because there is no guarantee your house won't +burn down in future and it's important you understand that wooden houses +aren't safe. Really I'm just doing you a favour*." + +Don't get me wrong. I'm all for what *you're* doing - please do continue to +research and explore alternative trust configurations! This is helpful and +useful work. Perhaps we will find something that solves the burger problem +in a way that satisfies everyone. + +I'm really not a fan of Peter's approach, which is "hey let's try and cause +as many problems as possible to try and prove a point, without having +created any solutions". Replace-by-fee-scorched-earth doesn't work and +isn't a solution. Miners can easily cut payment fraudsters in on the stolen +money, and as they'd need to distribute custom double-spending wallets to +make the scheme work it'd be very easy to do. + +> Your also ssume people will expect the Bitcoin network to keep zero-conf +> safe forever and that Bitcoin valuation is tied to that. Given the options +> available and current state of things, I'm assuming that's wrong. +> +Why? You think ability to make payments in a few seconds is some irrelevant +curiousity? + +Let's put it this way. If BitPay's business model evaporates tomorrow, +along with all the merchants they support, do you think that'd have any +effect on Bitcoin's value? If not, why not? + +--f46d043bdf5e339c0c050ee547e5 +Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 +Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable + +<div dir=3D"ltr"><div class=3D"gmail_extra"><div class=3D"gmail_quote"><blo= +ckquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #c= +cc solid;padding-left:1ex"><p dir=3D"ltr"><span class=3D"">> So you'= +re just arguing that a notary is different to a miner, without spelling out= + exactly why.</span></p></blockquote><div>I'm afraid I still don't = +understand why you think notaries would build long term businesses but mine= +rs wouldn't, in this model.</div><div><br></div><div>I think you are sa= +ying because notaries have identity, brand awareness and because they have = +big up front bonds, that means they will be trustworthy.</div><div><br></di= +v><div>Well, sure. It's the same model governments use and is why being= + a money transmitter in the USA is so difficult: you need to put up large s= +ums of money as collateral and have your fingerprints taken 48 times. <i>Th= +en</i>=C2=A0you can start advertising to get customers!<br></div><div><br><= +/div><div>The reason mining is such a nice model is it doesn't have the= +se sorts of requirements.</div><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"m= +argin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><p dir=3D"ltr= +">As notaries can be small operations ..... [snip] ...... (almost every lar= +ge organization in the world have some unallocated funds somewhere).</p></b= +lockquote><div>Which is it? Are notaries small operations or large operatio= +ns?=C2=A0</div><div><br></div><div>I think exploring new consensus models w= +ith semi-trusted notaries is interesting, but it's not Bitcoin.</div><b= +lockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px = +#ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"> +<p dir=3D"ltr">Depending on that which isn't guaranteed is baaaad, and = +breaking other people's assumptions is by itself NOT an attack if there= + never was a guarantee or even as little as an implicit understanding it is= + safe.<br></p></blockquote><div>Please don't try and apply this logic i= +n the real world :( Rephrased:</div><div><br></div><div>"<i>That's= + a nice house. I noticed it's made of wood. I'm going to start fire= +s until it burns down, because there is no guarantee your house won't b= +urn down in future and it's important you understand that wooden houses= + aren't safe. Really I'm just doing you a favour</i>."</div><d= +iv><br></div><div>Don't get me wrong. I'm all for what <i>you'r= +e</i>=C2=A0doing - please do continue to research and explore alternative t= +rust configurations! This is helpful and useful work. Perhaps we will find = +something that solves the burger problem in a way that satisfies everyone.<= +/div><div><br></div><div>I'm really not a fan of Peter's approach, = +which is "hey let's try and cause as many problems as possible to = +try and prove a point, without having created any solutions". Replace-= +by-fee-scorched-earth doesn't work and isn't a solution. Miners can= + easily cut payment fraudsters in on the stolen money, and as they'd ne= +ed to distribute custom double-spending wallets to make the scheme work it&= +#39;d be very easy to do.</div><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"m= +argin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><p dir=3D"ltr= +"></p> +<p dir=3D"ltr">Your also ssume people will expect the Bitcoin network to ke= +ep zero-conf safe forever and that Bitcoin valuation is tied to that. Given= + the options available and current state of things, I'm assuming that&#= +39;s wrong.</p></blockquote><div>Why? You think ability to make payments in= + a few seconds is some irrelevant curiousity?</div><div><br></div><div>Let&= +#39;s put it this way. If BitPay's business model evaporates tomorrow, = +along with all the merchants they support, do you think that'd have any= + effect on Bitcoin's value? If not, why not?</div></div></div></div> + +--f46d043bdf5e339c0c050ee547e5-- + + |