summaryrefslogtreecommitdiff
diff options
context:
space:
mode:
authorGareth Williams <gacrux@gmail.com>2014-04-28 09:10:43 +1000
committerbitcoindev <bitcoindev@gnusha.org>2014-04-27 23:11:44 +0000
commit90470ff7621afa78e4f1cd2ff7e1bd9ddc3860fd (patch)
tree681f8805c97f7ed7c846b4d52602e5c37127f2a7
parent0ce4a8ddf0eb004d91dd4037612dfbc03c12b3ba (diff)
downloadpi-bitcoindev-90470ff7621afa78e4f1cd2ff7e1bd9ddc3860fd.tar.gz
pi-bitcoindev-90470ff7621afa78e4f1cd2ff7e1bd9ddc3860fd.zip
Re: [Bitcoin-development] Coinbase reallocation to discourage Finney attacks
-rw-r--r--19/1403274e904f8261dfd4f9f3306c901efd0d35122
1 files changed, 122 insertions, 0 deletions
diff --git a/19/1403274e904f8261dfd4f9f3306c901efd0d35 b/19/1403274e904f8261dfd4f9f3306c901efd0d35
new file mode 100644
index 000000000..589388165
--- /dev/null
+++ b/19/1403274e904f8261dfd4f9f3306c901efd0d35
@@ -0,0 +1,122 @@
+Received: from sog-mx-4.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.194]
+ helo=mx.sourceforge.net)
+ by sfs-ml-3.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76)
+ (envelope-from <gacrux@gmail.com>) id 1WeYEa-0002fM-MX
+ for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
+ Sun, 27 Apr 2014 23:11:44 +0000
+Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-4.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of gmail.com
+ designates 209.85.213.172 as permitted sender)
+ client-ip=209.85.213.172; envelope-from=gacrux@gmail.com;
+ helo=mail-ig0-f172.google.com;
+Received: from mail-ig0-f172.google.com ([209.85.213.172])
+ by sog-mx-4.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128)
+ (Exim 4.76) id 1WeYEZ-0006Zc-UB
+ for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
+ Sun, 27 Apr 2014 23:11:44 +0000
+Received: by mail-ig0-f172.google.com with SMTP id hn18so4125597igb.11
+ for <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>;
+ Sun, 27 Apr 2014 16:11:38 -0700 (PDT)
+X-Received: by 10.50.85.37 with SMTP id e5mr20068651igz.43.1398640298636;
+ Sun, 27 Apr 2014 16:11:38 -0700 (PDT)
+Received: from [192.168.1.2] (60-240-212-53.tpgi.com.au. [60.240.212.53])
+ by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id n5sm5463855igr.0.2014.04.27.16.11.26
+ for <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>
+ (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128);
+ Sun, 27 Apr 2014 16:11:37 -0700 (PDT)
+User-Agent: K-9 Mail for Android
+In-Reply-To: <CANEZrP2jTP+uCuXswopheJwBBmMp5ZHdqxua1sAhLF=cOnhPOg@mail.gmail.com>
+References: <CANEZrP0szimdFSk23aMfO8p2Xtgfbm6kZ=x3rmdPDFUD73xHMg@mail.gmail.com>
+ <CAE28kUQ9WOnHuFR6WYeU6rep3b74zDweTPxffF0L6FjZObXE6A@mail.gmail.com>
+ <CANEZrP3WBWi5h04yyQ115vXmVHupoj5MG+-8sx=2zEcCT5a9hg@mail.gmail.com>
+ <CAC1+kJNE+k4kcTj3Ap0-A=PdD1=+-k5hN4431Z99A+S7M3=BoQ@mail.gmail.com>
+ <CANEZrP3obO9rXKcX+G7bs2dd3AqEFOsO8pCUF6orrkGeZyr9Ew@mail.gmail.com>
+ <CAC1+kJPxwTm6qvh2GYT2XMJAPD5O4WHLOGBTRmchRmZ2wS4MSg@mail.gmail.com>
+ <CANEZrP2PZFVvH3oJyLW80e9W_Fa4bvqQ25E7T-ZFFuG9u-q1hQ@mail.gmail.com>
+ <5359E509.4080907@gmail.com>
+ <CANEZrP0bKe-=T5ps0myLZjo60tv2mkm3Bw0o4e-9y7zb1h5eDg@mail.gmail.com>
+ <535A60FE.10209@gmail.com>
+ <CANEZrP0y45eSVgbzXYmvYy1WEQNyd=tmC2EpZgGSB28poXSzDw@mail.gmail.com>
+ <535BA357.6050607@gmail.com>
+ <CANOOu=_T82zuV79DWZFGK0Nomhp-Y4tqOhw6ZHhCLb2uGtdR5w@mail.gmail.com>
+ <535CFDB4.1000200@gmail.com>
+ <CANEZrP2jTP+uCuXswopheJwBBmMp5ZHdqxua1sAhLF=cOnhPOg@mail.gmail.com>
+MIME-Version: 1.0
+Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
+Content-Type: text/plain;
+ charset=UTF-8
+From: Gareth Williams <gacrux@gmail.com>
+Date: Mon, 28 Apr 2014 09:10:43 +1000
+To: Bitcoin Dev <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>
+Message-ID: <e645bbe6-4ba4-4ecd-9a14-25386e8adbac@email.android.com>
+X-Spam-Score: -1.6 (-)
+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
+ (gacrux[at]gmail.com)
+ -0.0 SPF_PASS SPF: sender matches SPF record
+ -0.1 DKIM_VALID_AU Message has a valid DKIM or DK signature from
+ author's domain
+ 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
+X-Headers-End: 1WeYEZ-0006Zc-UB
+Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] Coinbase reallocation to discourage
+ Finney attacks
+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: Sun, 27 Apr 2014 23:11:44 -0000
+
+Agreed. I'm a pragmatist, certainly not anti-change (or even anti-zero-conf.) Useful and non-controversial hard forks don't keep me awake at night :) I support your general position on zero-conf payments (that they're useful and we should make them as reliable as practical.)
+
+But the very essence of Bitcoin, to me, is trustlessness. Satoshi's great invention isn't just another payment network - it's /ecash/. Bearer-negotiable, whoever-controls-the-private-keys-owns-it, **ecash**.
+
+If not that, what do you think it is? :-)
+
+I like trustless systems for purely pragmatic, cost-benefit reasons. They allow us to avoid all the costs associated with imperfect humans, while reaping the benefits of reliability and predictability :P
+
+
+On 28 April 2014 12:31:05 AM AEST, Mike Hearn <mike@plan99.net> wrote:
+>>
+>> That moves us away from a pure trustless system built upon a small
+>> democratic foundation (as something of a necessary evil in an
+>imperfect
+>> world where humans run our computers and use our system) and toward a
+>> "democratic system".
+>>
+>> You don't have to agree, but I hope you can understand the point I'm
+>> making :-)
+>
+>
+>Yep, your point is well made.
+>
+>I don't have much more to say about this proposal specifically, but I
+>think
+>this whole question of what changes are OK and what would be a
+>violation of
+>the social contract will get discussed endlessly over the coming years.
+>Put
+>another way, what do Bitcoin's users expect and want - a system that
+>evolves or a system that remains exactly as they found it? There will
+>be
+>good arguments on both sides, and the answer will probably be different
+>on
+>a case by case basis. But personally I'm skeptical of any argument that
+>argues against change for its own sake. It has to be an argument rooted
+>in
+>a careful analysis of costs and benefits.
+
+--
+Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.
+
+