MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CABsx9T0K3xQUSY26VYoJzyAGkqCfRL_xnkQUrv7M-HpOvpio5w@mail.gmail.com>
References: <5550D8BE.6070207@electrum.org>
	<ce3d34c92efd1cf57326e4679550944e@national.shitposting.agency>
	<CABsx9T1VgxEJWxrYTs+2hXGnGrSLGJ6mVcAexjXLvK7Vu+e3EA@mail.gmail.com>
	<5551F376.4050008@electrum.org>
	<CABsx9T1h7p3hDr7ty43uxsYs-oNRpndzg=dowST2tXtogxRm2g@mail.gmail.com>
	<555210AF.3090705@electrum.org>
	<CABsx9T3AxM3et7hgXx3+Rn3BvhQkF-Cn797sHcyztkMpD1UQmA@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAPS+U98sh6BmuGHWOffrmTpaM3CNfhBUWdmgACb9++jU6M1fmQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<CALqxMTGebNMARgps9mqxDSOw0cX9aeZZim82g8a4vE6sCPHq-g@mail.gmail.com>
	<CABsx9T0K3xQUSY26VYoJzyAGkqCfRL_xnkQUrv7M-HpOvpio5w@mail.gmail.com>
From: Pedro Worcel <pedro@worcel.com>
Date: Thu, 14 May 2015 08:05:55 +1200
Message-ID: <CAPS+U9-SzQeq5v+yzK6PiZrneLP3D7o-GVaJ4w=J22DPaoJBBg@mail.gmail.com>
To: Gavin Andresen <gavinandresen@gmail.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=047d7b3a802cf47c0b0515fc2501
Cc: Bitcoin Dev <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>
Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] Long-term mining incentives
Precedence: list

--047d7b3a802cf47c0b0515fc2501
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8

Thank you for your response, that does make sense. It's going to be
interesting to follow what is going to happen!

2015-05-14 3:41 GMT+12:00 Gavin Andresen <gavinandresen@gmail.com>:

> On Tue, May 12, 2015 at 7:48 PM, Adam Back <adam@cypherspace.org> wrote:
>
>> I think its fair to say no one knows how to make a consensus that
>> works in a decentralised fashion that doesnt weaken the bitcoin
>> security model without proof-of-work for now.
>>
>
> Yes.
>
>
>> I am presuming Gavin is just saying in the context of not pre-judging
>> the future that maybe in the far future another innovation might be
>> found (or alternatively maybe its not mathematically possible).
>>
>
> Yes... or an alternative might be found that weakens the Bitcoin security
> model by a small enough amount that it either doesn't matter or the
> weakening is vastly overwhelmed by some other benefit.
>
> I'm influenced by the way the Internet works; packets addressed to
> 74.125.226.67 reliably get to Google through a very decentralized system
> that I'll freely admit I don't understand. Yes, a determined attacker can
> re-route packets, but layers of security on top means re-routing packets
> isn't enough to pull off profitable attacks.
>
> I think Bitcoin's proof-of-work might evolve in a similar way. Yes, you
> might be able to 51% attack the POW, but layers of security on top of POW
> will mean that won't be enough to pull off profitable attacks.
>
>
> --
> --
> Gavin Andresen
>
>

--047d7b3a802cf47c0b0515fc2501
Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<div dir=3D"ltr"><div class=3D"gmail_default" style=3D"font-family:verdana,=
sans-serif">Thank you for your response, that does make sense. It&#39;s goi=
ng to be interesting to follow what is going to happen!</div></div><div cla=
ss=3D"gmail_extra"><br><div class=3D"gmail_quote">2015-05-14 3:41 GMT+12:00=
 Gavin Andresen <span dir=3D"ltr">&lt;<a href=3D"mailto:gavinandresen@gmail=
.com" target=3D"_blank">gavinandresen@gmail.com</a>&gt;</span>:<br><blockqu=
ote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc s=
olid;padding-left:1ex"><div dir=3D"ltr"><div class=3D"gmail_extra"><div cla=
ss=3D"gmail_quote"><span class=3D"">On Tue, May 12, 2015 at 7:48 PM, Adam B=
ack <span dir=3D"ltr">&lt;<a href=3D"mailto:adam@cypherspace.org" target=3D=
"_blank">adam@cypherspace.org</a>&gt;</span> wrote:<br><blockquote class=3D=
"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;borde=
r-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex">I t=
hink its fair to say no one knows how to make a consensus that<br>
works in a decentralised fashion that doesnt weaken the bitcoin<br>
security model without proof-of-work for now.<br></blockquote><div><br></di=
v></span><div>Yes.</div><span class=3D""><div>=C2=A0</div><blockquote class=
=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;bo=
rder-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex">=
I am presuming Gavin is just saying in the context of not pre-judging<br>
the future that maybe in the far future another innovation might be<br>
found (or alternatively maybe its not mathematically possible).<br></blockq=
uote><div><br></div></span><div>Yes... or an alternative might be found tha=
t weakens the Bitcoin security model by a small enough amount that it eithe=
r doesn&#39;t matter or the weakening is vastly overwhelmed by some other b=
enefit.</div><div><br></div><div>I&#39;m influenced by the way the Internet=
 works; packets addressed to 74.125.226.67 reliably get to Google through a=
 very decentralized system that I&#39;ll freely admit I don&#39;t understan=
d. Yes, a determined attacker can re-route packets, but layers of security =
on top means re-routing packets isn&#39;t enough to pull off profitable att=
acks.</div><div><br></div><div>I think Bitcoin&#39;s proof-of-work might ev=
olve in a similar way. Yes, you might be able to 51% attack the POW, but la=
yers of security on top of POW will mean that won&#39;t be enough to pull o=
ff profitable attacks.</div></div><span class=3D"HOEnZb"><font color=3D"#88=
8888"><div><br></div><div><br></div>-- <br><div>--<br>Gavin Andresen<br></d=
iv><div><br></div>
</font></span></div></div>
</blockquote></div><br></div>

--047d7b3a802cf47c0b0515fc2501--