To: Peter R <peter_r@gmx.com>,
	Bitcoin Protocol Discussion <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
References: <5b9ba6c4-6d8f-9c0b-2420-2be6c30f87b5@cannon-ciota.info>
	<35ba77db-f95a-4517-c960-8ad42a633ba0@gmail.com>
	<f4849cef-3c40-31a4-e323-6a731bb52bc2@cannon-ciota.info>
	<9C2A6867-470D-4336-8439-17F4E0CA4B17@gmx.com>
From: Eric Voskuil <eric@voskuil.org>
Message-ID: <4b56bb5d-f2e4-1c68-2f64-20d631c69ffd@voskuil.org>
Date: Sat, 25 Mar 2017 20:00:51 -0700
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101
	Thunderbird/45.5.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <9C2A6867-470D-4336-8439-17F4E0CA4B17@gmx.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Two altcoins and a 51% attack (was: Defending
 against empty or near empty blocks from malicious miner takeover?)
Precedence: list

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA256

On 03/25/2017 01:28 PM, Peter R via bitcoin-dev wrote:

> In the case of the coming network upgrade to larger blocks, a
primary concern [...] is the possibility of a blockchain split and the
associated confusion, replay risk, etc.

> [...] a minority that does not want to abide by the [hard fork]
ruleset enforced by the majority could change the proof-of-work and
start a spin-off from the existing Bitcoin ledger [...]

The "spin off" to which you refer is an altcoin. The "network upgrade"
to which you refer is also an altcoin. Both are hard forks from
Bitcoin. I'm having a hard time imagining how a plan to create two new
altcoins from Bitcoin avoids either a split or confusion.

Application of hash power toward the disruption of Bitcoin presumes
participating miners are willing to accept a total loss on these
operations. I can imagine a significant portion of the hash power
deciding to let their competitors donate to "confusion reduction".
Eventually those thrifty miners will put the philanthropists out of
business. Maybe you can get Coinbase and Bitpay to finance the operation
.

This plan seems to be a response to the industry call for replay
protection. Actually writing the code is another option.

> once a super-majority of the network hash power has upgraded.

Despite the fact that nobody (miners included) has any way to measure
what software the economy (or hash power) is running, or what is the
economic weight of that portion of the economy.

e
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.22 (GNU/Linux)

iQEcBAEBCAAGBQJY1y7aAAoJEDzYwH8LXOFO9EMH/Aip84JpoYBM8/JIRpjq/wzp
VBU9rwMrVwaKdt8IzdJIhaD8FAiXYmXP6xM3eYk5Jp5g67uBnlrmXqlM/IfHI374
sKvN2nyHNqng9citI6ZeR+B3xJ7oFzycKf+KnvKi5JnPEMuTYwIw+dvXJGvZdjeH
WxW0g63KvfDPvYbYkE1hKnzUHWxGrR/Jrs898Cnwd0Z9OjrVNM3ZEix/IK4QrNRN
e/xLXjuIDHx6nzbddbVOSsuxBDo0GZUufGM4zTrGG+kNy4xFWsfwaXlM6kHmRqGF
73PDFWzbiur4B0CoBA7zd2C2ErypKZOoM35rsvwZq/a23OlxH6Jds7+6jTwN9lQ=
=0Bn2
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----