diff options
author | Alexander Leishman <leishman3@gmail.com> | 2014-10-25 21:51:59 +0000 |
---|---|---|
committer | bitcoindev <bitcoindev@gnusha.org> | 2014-10-25 21:52:06 +0000 |
commit | 9a16028e4b0ae4e93f6844b20d95e7605e661194 (patch) | |
tree | 71bf1ee218ce2b5494c19dd8a0507af7ef0395f2 | |
parent | 3f0b5ab11049e51b994c0679eea0b37fb4c4f699 (diff) | |
download | pi-bitcoindev-9a16028e4b0ae4e93f6844b20d95e7605e661194.tar.gz pi-bitcoindev-9a16028e4b0ae4e93f6844b20d95e7605e661194.zip |
Re: [Bitcoin-development] death by halving
-rw-r--r-- | 74/46ebadefa1763ccd7b5735d9acee9124aeb464 | 215 |
1 files changed, 215 insertions, 0 deletions
diff --git a/74/46ebadefa1763ccd7b5735d9acee9124aeb464 b/74/46ebadefa1763ccd7b5735d9acee9124aeb464 new file mode 100644 index 000000000..afc8af113 --- /dev/null +++ b/74/46ebadefa1763ccd7b5735d9acee9124aeb464 @@ -0,0 +1,215 @@ +Received: from sog-mx-2.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.192] + helo=mx.sourceforge.net) + by sfs-ml-1.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76) + (envelope-from <leishman3@gmail.com>) id 1Xi9Fm-0005P2-Ls + for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; + Sat, 25 Oct 2014 21:52:06 +0000 +Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-2.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of gmail.com + designates 209.85.213.172 as permitted sender) + client-ip=209.85.213.172; envelope-from=leishman3@gmail.com; + helo=mail-ig0-f172.google.com; +Received: from mail-ig0-f172.google.com ([209.85.213.172]) + by sog-mx-2.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128) + (Exim 4.76) id 1Xi9Fl-0001lq-EQ + for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; + Sat, 25 Oct 2014 21:52:06 +0000 +Received: by mail-ig0-f172.google.com with SMTP id h15so1891711igd.11 + for <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>; + Sat, 25 Oct 2014 14:52:00 -0700 (PDT) +X-Received: by 10.50.78.166 with SMTP id c6mr12353742igx.16.1414273920038; + Sat, 25 Oct 2014 14:52:00 -0700 (PDT) +MIME-Version: 1.0 +References: <CAE28kUS-uDbd_Br3H5BxwRm1PZFpOwLhcyyZT9b1_VfRaBC9jw@mail.gmail.com> + <2109053.EM3JWxoz5A@coldstorage> + <CAE28kUT-Ywo=de94HVJCmLJhWnf_=v5Vo=M9pjed-YhEAu5Sjw@mail.gmail.com> +From: Alexander Leishman <leishman3@gmail.com> +Date: Sat, 25 Oct 2014 21:51:59 +0000 +Message-ID: <CABW94zRyNWzuRe_xMjj07s+pO5cMEtB7QvR7RiOnTEBbw4xhpw@mail.gmail.com> +To: Alex Mizrahi <alex.mizrahi@gmail.com>, + Bitcoin Dev <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net> +Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=089e01633df29e7ec30506464e93 +X-Spam-Score: -0.3 (/) +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 + (leishman3[at]gmail.com) + -0.0 SPF_PASS SPF: sender matches SPF record + 0.2 FREEMAIL_ENVFROM_END_DIGIT Envelope-from freemail username ends in + digit (leishman3[at]gmail.com) + 1.0 HTML_MESSAGE BODY: HTML included in message + -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: 1Xi9Fl-0001lq-EQ +Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] death by halving +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: Sat, 25 Oct 2014 21:52:06 -0000 + +--089e01633df29e7ec30506464e93 +Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 + +Interesting analysis! I think there are a few important effects that aren't +being considered. + +1. When the block reward is halved, inflation is halved as well. Is this +halving already priced in by the market or will it result in an upward +pressure on the price? + +2. It was acknowledged that the referenced analysis did not take into +account the result of a double-spend attack on the bitcoin price. However, +the effect of a detectable double-spend attack on the Bitcoin network is +not isolated to Bitcoin markets. The price of altcoins often trend with the +price of Bitcoin, so attacking Bitcoin may reduce the profitability of +'multipool' mining. Any alt-coin market vulnerable to the malicious +hash-power would probably go into panic mode. + +-Alex Leishman + + + + +On Sat Oct 25 2014 at 1:51:10 PM Alex Mizrahi <alex.mizrahi@gmail.com> +wrote: + +> +> +>> For the sake of argument, lets assume that somehow (quite unlikely) +> +> +> Why is it unlikely? Do you believe that the cost of electricity cannot be +> higher than expected mining revenue? +> Or do you expect miners to keep mining when it costs them money? +> +> +>> half the mining equipment gets shut off. +>> The amount of hashes/second is such that it is currently, lets just say, +>> quite +>> secure against any takeover. +>> +> +> The equipment won't be simply turned off, it will be up for grabs. +> +> Please check this web sites: +> +> https://nicehash.com/ +> https://www.multipool.us/ +> +> One can use them in the same way he uses normal mining pools, and they +> switch between different chains. +> Say, multipool.us can switch between BTC and PPC (Peercoin). +> Mining BTC will be less profitable after a halving, so a miner who is +> willing to maximize his profits might use multipool to auto-switch to +> something more profitable. +> Which might be attack-on-Bitcoin. +> E.g. if 60% of bitcoin's total hashrate is available via "multipools", one +> can try to pull of a double-spending attack. +> +> +>> Your document makes a long series of assumptions about how this can turn +>> out +>> bad with each individually is implausible, together are just fiction. +>> +> +> It sounds like you failed to grasp even basics. +> ------------------------------------------------------------ +> ------------------ +> _______________________________________________ +> Bitcoin-development mailing list +> Bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net +> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development +> + +--089e01633df29e7ec30506464e93 +Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 +Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable + +<div><span style=3D"line-height:19.7999992370605px">Interesting analysis! I= +</span><span style=3D"line-height:19.7999992370605px">=C2=A0think there are= + a few important effects that aren't being considered.</span></div><div= +><span style=3D"line-height:19.7999992370605px"><br></span></div><div><span= + style=3D"line-height:19.7999992370605px">1. When the block reward is halve= +d, inflation is halved as well. Is this halving already priced in by the ma= +rket or will it result in an upward pressure on the price?</span></div><div= +><span style=3D"line-height:19.7999992370605px"><br></span></div><div><span= + style=3D"line-height:19.7999992370605px">2. It was acknowledged that the r= +eferenced analysis did not take into account the result of a double-spend a= +ttack on the bitcoin price. However, the effect of a detectable double-spen= +d attack on the Bitcoin network is not isolated to Bitcoin markets. The pri= +ce of altcoins often trend with the price of Bitcoin, so attacking Bitcoin = +may reduce the profitability of 'multipool' mining. Any alt-coin ma= +rket vulnerable to the malicious hash-power would probably go into panic mo= +de.</span></div><div><span style=3D"line-height:19.7999992370605px"><br></s= +pan></div><div><span style=3D"line-height:19.7999992370605px">-Alex Leishma= +n</span></div><div><br></div><div><div><span style=3D"line-height:19.799999= +2370605px"><br></span></div><div><br></div></div><br><div class=3D"gmail_qu= +ote">On Sat Oct 25 2014 at 1:51:10 PM Alex Mizrahi <<a href=3D"mailto:al= +ex.mizrahi@gmail.com">alex.mizrahi@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br><blockquote = +class=3D"gmail_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"><div class= +=3D"gmail_quote"><div>=C2=A0</div><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style= +=3D"margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(20= +4,204,204);border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex">For the sake of argume= +nt, lets assume that somehow (quite unlikely)</blockquote><div><br></div></= +div></div></div><div dir=3D"ltr"><div class=3D"gmail_extra"><div class=3D"g= +mail_quote"><div>Why is it unlikely? Do you believe that the cost of electr= +icity cannot be higher than expected mining revenue?</div><div>Or do you ex= +pect miners to keep mining when it costs them money?</div></div></div></div= +><div dir=3D"ltr"><div class=3D"gmail_extra"><div class=3D"gmail_quote"><di= +v>=C2=A0</div><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0px 0px 0px= + 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left= +-style:solid;padding-left:1ex"> half the=C2=A0mining equipment gets shut of= +f.<br> +The amount of hashes/second is such that it is currently, lets just say, qu= +ite<br> +secure against any takeover.<br></blockquote><div><br></div></div></div></d= +iv><div dir=3D"ltr"><div class=3D"gmail_extra"><div class=3D"gmail_quote"><= +div>The equipment won't be simply turned off, it will be up for grabs.<= +/div><div><br></div><div>Please check this web sites:</div><div><br></div><= +div><a href=3D"https://nicehash.com/" target=3D"_blank">https://nicehash.co= +m/</a></div><div><a href=3D"https://www.multipool.us/" target=3D"_blank">ht= +tps://www.multipool.us/</a>=C2=A0</div><div><br></div><div>One can use them= + in the same way he uses normal mining pools, and they switch between diffe= +rent chains.</div><div>Say, <a href=3D"http://multipool.us" target=3D"_blan= +k">multipool.us</a> can switch between BTC and PPC (Peercoin).</div><div>Mi= +ning BTC will be less profitable after a halving, so a miner who is willing= + to maximize his profits might use multipool to auto-switch to something mo= +re profitable.</div><div>Which might be attack-on-Bitcoin.</div><div>E.g. i= +f 60% of bitcoin's total hashrate is available via "multipools&quo= +t;, one can try to pull of a double-spending attack.</div></div></div></div= +><div dir=3D"ltr"><div class=3D"gmail_extra"><div class=3D"gmail_quote"><di= +v>=C2=A0<br></div><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0px 0px= + 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-= +left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex">Your document makes a long series of ass= +umptions about how this can turn out<br> +bad with each individually is implausible, together are just fiction.<br></= +blockquote><div><br></div></div></div></div><div dir=3D"ltr"><div class=3D"= +gmail_extra"><div class=3D"gmail_quote"><div>It sounds like you failed to g= +rasp even basics.</div></div></div></div> +------------------------------<u></u>------------------------------<u></u>-= +-----------------<br> +______________________________<u></u>_________________<br> +Bitcoin-development mailing list<br> +<a href=3D"mailto:Bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net" target=3D"_bla= +nk">Bitcoin-development@lists.<u></u>sourceforge.net</a><br> +<a href=3D"https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development= +" target=3D"_blank">https://lists.sourceforge.net/<u></u>lists/listinfo/bit= +coin-<u></u>development</a><br> +</blockquote></div> + +--089e01633df29e7ec30506464e93-- + + |