Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-3.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of gmail.com
	designates 209.85.214.175 as permitted sender)
	client-ip=209.85.214.175; envelope-from=mh.in.england@gmail.com;
	helo=mail-ob0-f175.google.com; 
MIME-Version: 1.0
Sender: mh.in.england@gmail.com
In-Reply-To: <5357D394.7010908@gmail.com>
References: <CANEZrP0szimdFSk23aMfO8p2Xtgfbm6kZ=x3rmdPDFUD73xHMg@mail.gmail.com>
	<5357D394.7010908@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 23 Apr 2014 17:07:40 +0200
Message-ID: <CANEZrP0dxAOWxg8Nu9LqV1SGE1C1WD2m+EPhg3sFCnFQQVv4kQ@mail.gmail.com>
From: Mike Hearn <mike@plan99.net>
To: Justus Ranvier <justusranvier@gmail.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=089e0149c04ef9afe704f7b7174e
Cc: Bitcoin Dev <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>
Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] Coinbase reallocation to discourage
	Finney attacks
Precedence: list

--089e0149c04ef9afe704f7b7174e
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8

On Wed, Apr 23, 2014 at 4:52 PM, Justus Ranvier <justusranvier@gmail.com>wrote:

> If enough miners don't like a block that has been mined, they can all
> work to orphan it without any change to the protocol whatsoever.
>

As was already pointed out, yes. However this requires them to immediate
establish a majority consensus and be absolutely sure it really is the
majority. You suggest an out of band mechanism for that, but why is this
better than using the actual consensus mechanism you're trying to measure?


> Once you've changed the network such that it is no longer a machine
> that faithfully processes scripts


Bitcoin imposes far more rules than just execution of the scripting
language, many of which are entirely arbitrary and the result of
(controversial) human judgement, like the inflation schedule. You can't
claim Bitcoin implements only some kind of natural law.

--089e0149c04ef9afe704f7b7174e
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">On W=
ed, Apr 23, 2014 at 4:52 PM, Justus Ranvier <span dir=3D"ltr">&lt;<a href=
=3D"mailto:justusranvier@gmail.com" target=3D"_blank">justusranvier@gmail.c=
om</a>&gt;</span> wrote:<br>
<blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1p=
x #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div class=3D"">If enough miners don&#39;t l=
ike a block that has been mined, they can all<br></div>
work to orphan it without any change to the protocol whatsoever.<br></block=
quote><div><br></div><div>As was already pointed out, yes. However this req=
uires them to immediate establish a majority consensus and be absolutely su=
re it really is the majority. You suggest an out of band mechanism for that=
, but why is this better than using the actual consensus mechanism you&#39;=
re trying to measure?</div>
<div>=C2=A0</div><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8=
ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">Once you&#39;ve changed the=
 network such that it is no longer a machine<br>
that faithfully processes scripts</blockquote><div><br></div><div>Bitcoin i=
mposes far more rules than just execution of the scripting language, many o=
f which are entirely arbitrary and the result of (controversial) human judg=
ement, like the inflation schedule. You can&#39;t claim Bitcoin implements =
only some kind of natural law.</div>
</div></div></div>

--089e0149c04ef9afe704f7b7174e--