Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-1.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of gmail.com
	designates 74.125.82.178 as permitted sender)
	client-ip=74.125.82.178; envelope-from=mh.in.england@gmail.com;
	helo=mail-we0-f178.google.com; 
MIME-Version: 1.0
Sender: mh.in.england@gmail.com
In-Reply-To: <CAE28kUQ87jWhq1p6RK1eKEuEP1ERxN_P2SS0=YsFEGAqRyMPLA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <20150212064719.GA6563@savin.petertodd.org>
	<CANEZrP2uVT_UqJbzyQcEbiS78T68Jj2cH7OGXv5QtYiCwArDdA@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAE28kUQ87jWhq1p6RK1eKEuEP1ERxN_P2SS0=YsFEGAqRyMPLA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 12 Feb 2015 14:18:44 +0100
Message-ID: <CANEZrP2H2T2QFZceCc=YzwwiApJy7kY7FN0LoAZODGbW12SYsw@mail.gmail.com>
From: Mike Hearn <mike@plan99.net>
To: Alex Mizrahi <alex.mizrahi@gmail.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=047d7bacc0f29bcda9050ee3f5c3
Cc: Bitcoin Dev <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>
Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] replace-by-fee v0.10.0rc4
Precedence: list

--047d7bacc0f29bcda9050ee3f5c3
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8

>
> But, let's say, 5 years from now, some faction of miners who own
> soon-to-be-obsolete equipment will decide to boost their profits with a
> replace-by-fee pool and a corresponding wallet. They can market it as "1 of
> 10 hamburgers are free" if they have 10% of the total hashpower.
>

Yes, like any P2P network Bitcoin cannot work if a sufficiently large
number of miners decide to attack it. This is an ancient argument. It came
up the moment Bitcoin was first invented.

But this argument could have been made at any time in Bitcoin's entire
history. Lots of miners have dropped out due to hardware obsolescence, yet
massive double spending hasn't happened. Perhaps the system is not as
simple as you boil it down to be.

Anyway, what would happen in that event is within a few days some people
would stop selling Bitcoin for hamburgers, others would find workarounds,
and the fees collected from the double spends would be worth very little.
Nobody wins.

So would you take a responsibility for pushing the approach which isn't
> game-theoretically sound?
>

"The approach" is how Bitcoin has always worked.

People have been using game theory to predict the imminent demise of
Bitcoin since I first found it. Just one example:   "Bitcoin will collapse
when the 50->25 BTC drop happens" was promoted as a dead cert thing by game
theorists. Every miner becomes unprofitable and stops at once!

So far game theory based predictions tend to be proven wrong by reality, so
this sort of argument doesn't impress me much.

Anyway, going around this loop again is pointless. I brought up the counter
argument so people who see this thread don't mistakenly think Peter's
position is some kind of de-facto consensus about how Bitcoin should work.
Not because I love rehashing the same arguments every six months ad nauseum.

--047d7bacc0f29bcda9050ee3f5c3
Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<div dir=3D"ltr"><div class=3D"gmail_extra"><div class=3D"gmail_quote"><blo=
ckquote 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;paddi=
ng-left:1ex"><div dir=3D"ltr"><div class=3D"gmail_extra"><div class=3D"gmai=
l_quote"><div>But, let&#39;s say, 5 years from now, some faction of miners =
who own soon-to-be-obsolete equipment will decide to boost their profits wi=
th a replace-by-fee pool and a corresponding wallet. They can market it as =
&quot;1 of 10 hamburgers are free&quot; if they have 10% of the total hashp=
ower.</div></div></div></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>Yes, like any=
 P2P network Bitcoin cannot work if a sufficiently large number of miners d=
ecide to attack it. This is an ancient argument. It came up the moment Bitc=
oin was first invented.</div><div><br></div><div>But this argument could ha=
ve been made at any time in Bitcoin&#39;s entire history. Lots of miners ha=
ve dropped out due to hardware obsolescence, yet massive double spending ha=
sn&#39;t happened. Perhaps the system is not as simple as you boil it down =
to be.</div><div><br></div><div>Anyway, what would happen in that event is =
within a few days some people would stop selling Bitcoin for hamburgers, ot=
hers would find workarounds, and the fees collected from the double spends =
would be worth very little. Nobody wins.</div><div><br></div><blockquote cl=
ass=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:1e=
x"><div dir=3D"ltr"><div class=3D"gmail_extra"><div class=3D"gmail_quote"><=
div>So would you take a responsibility for pushing the approach which isn&#=
39;t game-theoretically sound?</div></div></div></div></blockquote><div><br=
></div><div>&quot;The approach&quot; is how Bitcoin has always worked.</div=
><div><br></div><div>People have been using game theory to predict the immi=
nent demise of Bitcoin since I first found it. Just one example: =C2=A0 &qu=
ot;Bitcoin will collapse when the 50-&gt;25 BTC drop happens&quot; was prom=
oted as a dead cert thing by game theorists. Every miner becomes unprofitab=
le and stops at once!<br></div><div><br></div><div>So far game theory based=
 predictions tend to be proven wrong by reality, so this sort of argument d=
oesn&#39;t impress me much.</div><div><br></div><div>Anyway, going around t=
his loop again is pointless. I brought up the counter argument so people wh=
o see this thread don&#39;t mistakenly think Peter&#39;s position is some k=
ind of de-facto consensus about how Bitcoin should work. Not because I love=
 rehashing the same arguments every six months ad nauseum.</div></div></div=
></div>

--047d7bacc0f29bcda9050ee3f5c3--