summaryrefslogtreecommitdiff
diff options
context:
space:
mode:
authorJorge Timón <jtimon@jtimon.cc>2017-04-08 18:27:48 +0200
committerbitcoindev <bitcoindev@gnusha.org>2017-04-08 16:27:50 +0000
commit776cb6258e16766b72bab1ab104d53049e5c9c03 (patch)
tree78b344eab7cb5d6397bf8b8c8fe7d54228d71024
parentb4411cd09ee3d3a9b151d1b2124536e762a5d6f2 (diff)
downloadpi-bitcoindev-776cb6258e16766b72bab1ab104d53049e5c9c03.tar.gz
pi-bitcoindev-776cb6258e16766b72bab1ab104d53049e5c9c03.zip
Re: [bitcoin-dev] A Small Modification to Segwit
-rw-r--r--b7/2e031ad427da78d77ad3798e27e271b62e3b74119
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, &quot;Jimmy Song via bitcoin-dev&q=
+uot; &lt;<a href=3D"mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org">bitcoin-d=
+ev@lists.linuxfoundation.org</a>&gt; 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--
+