diff options
| author | Jared Lee Richardson <jaredr26@gmail.com> | 2017-04-06 10:31:13 -0700 |
|---|---|---|
| committer | bitcoindev <bitcoindev@gnusha.org> | 2017-04-06 17:31:16 +0000 |
| commit | d913b8a5cdd070f3cbc484f2393c4f8badd0dc14 (patch) | |
| tree | fbc913bfe65ec4e91694a6769a21bf99f29e1ff9 | |
| parent | a4955d9bb8cc3030c7c23e0b46724a2e8ba63bfa (diff) | |
| download | pi-bitcoindev-d913b8a5cdd070f3cbc484f2393c4f8badd0dc14.tar.gz pi-bitcoindev-d913b8a5cdd070f3cbc484f2393c4f8badd0dc14.zip | |
Re: [bitcoin-dev] BIP proposal: Inhibiting a covert attack on the Bitcoin POW function
| -rw-r--r-- | b1/afc90a5b45dc1920aed2f42179dd8bb4040072 | 120 |
1 files changed, 120 insertions, 0 deletions
diff --git a/b1/afc90a5b45dc1920aed2f42179dd8bb4040072 b/b1/afc90a5b45dc1920aed2f42179dd8bb4040072 new file mode 100644 index 000000000..d6d649bd4 --- /dev/null +++ b/b1/afc90a5b45dc1920aed2f42179dd8bb4040072 @@ -0,0 +1,120 @@ +Return-Path: <jaredr26@gmail.com> +Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org + [172.17.192.35]) + by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id CDDA7BDF + for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>; + Thu, 6 Apr 2017 17:31:16 +0000 (UTC) +X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 +Received: from mail-vk0-f46.google.com (mail-vk0-f46.google.com + [209.85.213.46]) + by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id AA900164 + for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>; + Thu, 6 Apr 2017 17:31:15 +0000 (UTC) +Received: by mail-vk0-f46.google.com with SMTP id d188so48339267vka.0 + for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>; + Thu, 06 Apr 2017 10:31:15 -0700 (PDT) +DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; + h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to + :content-transfer-encoding; + bh=FFfjuZtTa7rPGcRyfACKGEFYF9X+RO+NPg6LV/BgbCY=; + b=QvlgCF5W/cjl5jdJw4NU4wHoaFJP/ZxLKd/kg2Y4lIZG4SeTE+njyaiQpm3kFhjzsa + bQrmGzr8rgMuZwXGJjUHHQPiOeTAPBFz+y5fIn4gq56aYhTSQz3x+iz2GO8rHDBkqUhT + S+SaHGg4wcqScxvFKYAn/Jz6+mGis8s1T1xj6uoRBNkfNht4W8UTDlFQWrzk/LnwnAkR + w9M9HKIDrJzzHUJdw7P8F8umRYkvfo+DvC49pzXAOaR5guf/OvpKGVWK0t5EdzZRtOzw + vC85d0eVPpHoIrEGV91U5iqxFPwoN+mnJU4ljIqx3kn/VyUMtr6ZDXj7ruWZ4TvzS7HQ + r5TA== +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:content-transfer-encoding; + bh=FFfjuZtTa7rPGcRyfACKGEFYF9X+RO+NPg6LV/BgbCY=; + b=C/fkEUK1lrH14hnk5z0hglX7dZJ7HYMWJcIIn4b8RcnWJWna+x/1MHsJEWqqen8BtV + cjQkOjASu6tIanR1v7tcqJ5nU2FJftNuyJOjfqppmE1O6KyUDhAYhjUKNGyb0d22/DIx + 70R5buRxfwFhrDGOPIC/dtfwih46ziOG7RNnMCLn8E9CKJz16/onLcVw2bG1KwNzyPs5 + 1LH071xPRK4IyUHFbT0kj/qSxq2BTQarwtyMiPNwDsdPJFUiXMyAUAE2kdg/vwcp+Bcx + 7tLJjK/9aFtAvH73LwEEnx/iNL03HDJIa0uTiFvb/Cg381Q3G8LR2vTUFZ4UYOlB9v68 + DLTw== +X-Gm-Message-State: AFeK/H3EN84rXr6vOTh4Y7CZvRgb1BEetXiuPejtkLBLCeTWaUfxeUKFGKZ6iNVTMrVuTV1WyscUpqEPncOzyA== +X-Received: by 10.31.92.69 with SMTP id q66mr15494395vkb.119.1491499874673; + Thu, 06 Apr 2017 10:31:14 -0700 (PDT) +MIME-Version: 1.0 +Received: by 10.31.157.143 with HTTP; Thu, 6 Apr 2017 10:31:13 -0700 (PDT) +In-Reply-To: <F5F02B94-E094-4C16-80B6-8B0876E423E4@toom.im> +References: <CAAS2fgR84898xD0nyq7ykJnB7qkdoCJYnFg6z5WZEUu0+-=mMA@mail.gmail.com> + <20170406023123.GA1071@savin.petertodd.org> + <CA+KqGkqSxeAUZFVFqM_QkEWcGFHgZXwGuOE==7HpXp1+D_Tj3Q@mail.gmail.com> + <20170406024910.GA1271@savin.petertodd.org> + <CAFVRnyrqiNY_JOqhv2ysm2WsBMYsU3tTAASAtHzMbA68_9Yx8g@mail.gmail.com> + <F5F02B94-E094-4C16-80B6-8B0876E423E4@toom.im> +From: Jared Lee Richardson <jaredr26@gmail.com> +Date: Thu, 6 Apr 2017 10:31:13 -0700 +Message-ID: <CAD1TkXsJ0QdVtirx77Hyup7qEDz+aSSSkkDt6HrXzZ_sD8Jxag@mail.gmail.com> +To: Jonathan Toomim <j@toom.im>, + Bitcoin Protocol Discussion <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> +Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 +Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable +X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.7 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, + DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,FREEMAIL_ENVFROM_END_DIGIT,FREEMAIL_FROM, + RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE autolearn=no version=3.3.1 +X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on + smtp1.linux-foundation.org +X-Mailman-Approved-At: Thu, 06 Apr 2017 17:34:38 +0000 +Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] BIP proposal: Inhibiting a covert attack on the + Bitcoin POW function +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: Thu, 06 Apr 2017 17:31:16 -0000 + +To me, all of these miss the main objection. If a miner found an +optimization and kept it for themselves, that's their prerogative. +But if that optimization also happens to directly discourage the +growth and improvement of the protocol in many unforseen ways, and it +also encourages the miner to include fewer transactions per block, +that directly hurts Bitcoin and its future. Something should clearly +be done about it when the latter is at issue. I agree with you that +the former is a relative nonissue. + +On Wed, Apr 5, 2017 at 11:24 PM, Jonathan Toomim via bitcoin-dev +<bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote: +> Ethically, this situation has some similarities to the DAO fork. We have = +an entity who closely examined the code, found an unintended characteristic= + of that code, and made use of that characteristic in order to gain tens of= + millions of dollars. Now that developers are aware of it, they want to mod= +ify the code in order to negate as much of the gains as possible. +> +> There are differences, too, of course: the DAO attacker was explicitly ma= +licious and stole Ether from others, whereas Bitmain is just optimizing the= +ir hardware better than anyone else and better than some of us think they s= +hould be allowed to. +> +> In both cases, developers are proposing that the developers and a majorit= +y of users collude to reduce the wealth of a single entity by altering the = +blockchain rules. +> +> In the case of the DAO fork, users were stealing back stolen funds, but t= +hat justification doesn't apply in this case. On the other hand, in this ca= +se we're talking about causing someone a loss by reducing the value of hard= +ware investments rather than forcibly taking back their coins, which is les= +s direct and maybe more justifiable. +> +> While I don't like patented mining algorithms, I also don't like the idea= + of playing Calvin Ball on the blockchain. Rule changes should not be emplo= +yed as a means of disempowering and empoverishing particular entities witho= +ut very good reason. Whether patenting a mining optimization qualifies as g= +ood reason is questionable. +> +> _______________________________________________ +> bitcoin-dev mailing list +> bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org +> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev +> + |