diff options
author | Gareth Williams <gacrux@gmail.com> | 2014-04-28 09:10:43 +1000 |
---|---|---|
committer | bitcoindev <bitcoindev@gnusha.org> | 2014-04-27 23:11:44 +0000 |
commit | 90470ff7621afa78e4f1cd2ff7e1bd9ddc3860fd (patch) | |
tree | 681f8805c97f7ed7c846b4d52602e5c37127f2a7 | |
parent | 0ce4a8ddf0eb004d91dd4037612dfbc03c12b3ba (diff) | |
download | pi-bitcoindev-90470ff7621afa78e4f1cd2ff7e1bd9ddc3860fd.tar.gz pi-bitcoindev-90470ff7621afa78e4f1cd2ff7e1bd9ddc3860fd.zip |
Re: [Bitcoin-development] Coinbase reallocation to discourage Finney attacks
-rw-r--r-- | 19/1403274e904f8261dfd4f9f3306c901efd0d35 | 122 |
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. + + |