diff options
author | Jorge Timón <jtimon@jtimon.cc> | 2017-04-08 18:27:48 +0200 |
---|---|---|
committer | bitcoindev <bitcoindev@gnusha.org> | 2017-04-08 16:27:50 +0000 |
commit | 776cb6258e16766b72bab1ab104d53049e5c9c03 (patch) | |
tree | 78b344eab7cb5d6397bf8b8c8fe7d54228d71024 | |
parent | b4411cd09ee3d3a9b151d1b2124536e762a5d6f2 (diff) | |
download | pi-bitcoindev-776cb6258e16766b72bab1ab104d53049e5c9c03.tar.gz pi-bitcoindev-776cb6258e16766b72bab1ab104d53049e5c9c03.zip |
Re: [bitcoin-dev] A Small Modification to Segwit
-rw-r--r-- | b7/2e031ad427da78d77ad3798e27e271b62e3b74 | 119 |
1 files changed, 119 insertions, 0 deletions
diff --git a/b7/2e031ad427da78d77ad3798e27e271b62e3b74 b/b7/2e031ad427da78d77ad3798e27e271b62e3b74 new file mode 100644 index 000000000..ce3edad3a --- /dev/null +++ b/b7/2e031ad427da78d77ad3798e27e271b62e3b74 @@ -0,0 +1,119 @@ +Return-Path: <jtimon@jtimon.cc> +Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org + [172.17.192.35]) + by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B61C6899 + for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>; + Sat, 8 Apr 2017 16:27:50 +0000 (UTC) +X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 +Received: from mail-ua0-f182.google.com (mail-ua0-f182.google.com + [209.85.217.182]) + by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 31594FF + for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>; + Sat, 8 Apr 2017 16:27:50 +0000 (UTC) +Received: by mail-ua0-f182.google.com with SMTP id u103so9296900uau.1 + for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>; + Sat, 08 Apr 2017 09:27:50 -0700 (PDT) +DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; + d=jtimon-cc.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; + h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to + :cc; bh=s4MTo4N42oiWJAuInYwAE7Irj3Hcx2j9iqscIom20Ys=; + b=MQEyBEY5FkMFloKRIF5cj9GeKao7O2jWwSDWo/t3Cg+au/Dimp1mjzL2ZS5rSQqk+b + GNqlUQe+PPWAOAnm+dn/OwxpjltR6haMN5nfFzUDr6pZ7d1UvHukEC72tfNWtL/FTkxv + 8HqBLVv7bBmDrNDsPnPTGm44l42PeLL5L9TZwGFGMAiAEyIp8uD034Fng4d586SOnkJD + 1T3nfGjscjUkOZ0IzUjR/GVjyUYtWOokbj2YPCaJY4UwJYhip8rRZDZzLrqLXao6p9kX + 1+fGMxWqO32eCVFcL49YhFfvjWNuy56cSFznSal29VdkL2LRcpJqpRNSQQlDjuFzbenF + iQpw== +X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; + d=1e100.net; s=20161025; + h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date + :message-id:subject:to:cc; + bh=s4MTo4N42oiWJAuInYwAE7Irj3Hcx2j9iqscIom20Ys=; + b=UIy14/9aga8DMEKt8h05Y+PxaHaUemmaI0HgFYXhmHSveFL4gcwsfL8JsJeGt/qP7X + WELWHacLvHxiP0072kPxOBdhobpRvkY7CBw7r62GE+9I1cjLzEjOblkCKXGOOeokm+57 + QqUwUKhcw/x/myIvmzIzyWyBx1k82Y3o+vEltnZhHbgxSQyQ7CqxdPJjxm/HREKjQ5BR + IiLbDyLpwS5SQw1InsA9Kvuy1/waLKJe+wfJXOxV7RMn2ckYC3rqIusw2Z9KXz++xemz + bKFw8Hl/2BGe4mmYv7mZXjxtJYdSzEGQKrYz8K4QCAsAskb6o7a39lRpByQ+lOv2F/+X + Ubcg== +X-Gm-Message-State: AFeK/H0z5ikBVCeF69JgeU8/+DfdMGm11ub7wN8hw+8byMH2G/Lz+y9FCfi/KYc21glBwwZlgZcVYXf4tVwIXw== +X-Received: by 10.159.48.81 with SMTP id i17mr23130960uab.65.1491668869241; + Sat, 08 Apr 2017 09:27:49 -0700 (PDT) +MIME-Version: 1.0 +Received: by 10.31.151.136 with HTTP; Sat, 8 Apr 2017 09:27:48 -0700 (PDT) +Received: by 10.31.151.136 with HTTP; Sat, 8 Apr 2017 09:27:48 -0700 (PDT) +In-Reply-To: <CAJR7vkoq8Y_-fbdxN=--gF5wrGByr5oODc4FkTaCEvDSuP0whQ@mail.gmail.com> +References: <CAJR7vkpRhNsQsem-nFkeubX04xx1y7aHwCENfg0d1266oOsXMw@mail.gmail.com> + <Cwhn7YzwaDUZtOygDAgrU1UXjRPG-EiH3Fyz2c95gqOpNnNbiYL1NvhS28yK5wLJCnIqDaBrM6c574dY-O6_-bRjLIFmDe2NCxIuyV1w2dw=@protonmail.com> + <CAJR7vkoq8Y_-fbdxN=--gF5wrGByr5oODc4FkTaCEvDSuP0whQ@mail.gmail.com> +From: =?UTF-8?B?Sm9yZ2UgVGltw7Nu?= <jtimon@jtimon.cc> +Date: Sat, 8 Apr 2017 18:27:48 +0200 +Message-ID: <CABm2gDo+XreV1va2rrHrBCf9x-pcGWqjaQcn7ptRJ4jRE=N79g@mail.gmail.com> +To: Jimmy Song <jaejoon@gmail.com>, + Bitcoin Dev <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> +Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=94eb2c1b113212f349054caa3948 +X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, + DKIM_VALID, HTML_MESSAGE, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE autolearn=ham version=3.3.1 +X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on + smtp1.linux-foundation.org +Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] A Small Modification to Segwit +X-BeenThere: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org +X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 +Precedence: list +List-Id: Bitcoin Protocol Discussion <bitcoin-dev.lists.linuxfoundation.org> +List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/options/bitcoin-dev>, + <mailto:bitcoin-dev-request@lists.linuxfoundation.org?subject=unsubscribe> +List-Archive: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/> +List-Post: <mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> +List-Help: <mailto:bitcoin-dev-request@lists.linuxfoundation.org?subject=help> +List-Subscribe: <https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev>, + <mailto:bitcoin-dev-request@lists.linuxfoundation.org?subject=subscribe> +X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 08 Apr 2017 16:27:50 -0000 + +--94eb2c1b113212f349054caa3948 +Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 + +On 8 Apr 2017 5:06 am, "Jimmy Song via bitcoin-dev" < +bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote: + +Praxeology Guy, + +Why would the actual end users of Bitcoin (the long term and short term +> owners of bitcoins) who run fully verifying nodes want to change Bitcoin +> policy in order to make their money more vulnerable to 51% attack? +> + +Certainly, if only one company made use of the extra nonce space, they +would have an advantage. But think of it this way, if some newer ASIC +optimization comes up, would you rather have a non-ASICBoosted hash rate to +defend with or an ASICBoosted hash rate? Certainly, the latter, being +higher will secure the Bitcoin network better against newer optimizations. + + +Why? + +--94eb2c1b113212f349054caa3948 +Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 +Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable + +<div dir=3D"auto"><br><div class=3D"gmail_extra" dir=3D"auto"><br><div clas= +s=3D"gmail_quote">On 8 Apr 2017 5:06 am, "Jimmy Song via bitcoin-dev&q= +uot; <<a href=3D"mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org">bitcoin-d= +ev@lists.linuxfoundation.org</a>> wrote:<br type=3D"attribution"><blockq= +uote class=3D"quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;= +padding-left:1ex"><div dir=3D"ltr"><div class=3D"gmail_extra">Praxeology Gu= +y,</div><div class=3D"gmail_extra"><br><div class=3D"gmail_quote"><div clas= +s=3D"quoted-text"><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .= +8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div>Why would the actual = +end users of Bitcoin (the long term and short term owners of bitcoins) who = +run fully verifying nodes want to change Bitcoin policy in order to make th= +eir money more vulnerable to 51% attack?</div></blockquote><div><br></div><= +/div><div>Certainly, if only one company made use of the extra nonce space,= + they would have an advantage. But think of it this way, if some newer ASIC= + optimization comes up, would you rather have a non-ASICBoosted hash rate t= +o defend with or an ASICBoosted hash rate? Certainly, the latter, being hig= +her will secure the Bitcoin network better against newer optimizations.</di= +v></div></div></div></blockquote></div></div><div dir=3D"auto"><br></div><d= +iv dir=3D"auto">Why?</div><div class=3D"gmail_extra" dir=3D"auto"></div></d= +iv> + +--94eb2c1b113212f349054caa3948-- + |