Return-Path: Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org [172.17.192.35]) by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 67F459C for ; Thu, 8 Jun 2017 06:39:01 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from mail-wm0-f45.google.com (mail-wm0-f45.google.com [74.125.82.45]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4DED6140 for ; Thu, 8 Jun 2017 06:39:00 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-wm0-f45.google.com with SMTP id d73so24161768wma.0 for ; Wed, 07 Jun 2017 23:39:00 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=ethereum.org; s=google; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=WJy4lf3qPG70BOZ6PQ1/TQgejergqCIN6eFSNBzWXqw=; b=MZnRfgKVNd1sM1EbLVnsZPW/94fXEYZoraGK5arfGGJfLBlg1MA4++igmzQqmyDnXX 0sHUWN6XcAfhge/LMU/avmUnSVMTVa5ljww614jqTR64Tk+Ub4h4H833wGwb3+bBm8NL /FzuPo/TGXnMjRH+TXl3s5aiBG+pke3wPI98w= X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=WJy4lf3qPG70BOZ6PQ1/TQgejergqCIN6eFSNBzWXqw=; b=Sjrvh8Qs8hAQ6+OfUmEPA9/+hrjwcYd8MGmFq7avO49mZ6/u7ejOjji4uY8+hw0hXx apV9jxAILfNUJefzjJ0uXqBc5O8bm0Vfq7xsekXFzvc0U0GbcjozzwXhDQsvxDwQqJxW MkNDRrR6BqYfRWfiPnBS+cBcubYzHNxxg1Ge77cuAnuAPkbrvRKz5AfF7j6G8PYA/3yY UteYta+tNQ5A9Ex0AZcYmUuyjS6P7Dhx9UJYPgOVpsI1jD8tfbYQpLSzECQmO5kD6UUi ANJLA27XXFdkWjo7BU4nNfxCR8VL+S9gJ5fOv/7NmWe9rj92DefsC1Cv+gRKEBP/EAYZ Y4Sw== X-Gm-Message-State: AKS2vOw0IM4H+89HfJm0nxns5hy9dyILCs2W7Q8a/yc+Zy6YzPerVB8T EBR2MsYVI0ci3L8W74kyzoE1bLkc7TdPmrA= X-Received: by 10.28.10.6 with SMTP id 6mr2231652wmk.5.1496903938838; Wed, 07 Jun 2017 23:38:58 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <31833011-7179-49D1-A07E-8FD9556C4534@taoeffect.com> In-Reply-To: From: Nick Johnson Date: Thu, 08 Jun 2017 06:38:48 +0000 Message-ID: To: Conner Fromknecht , Tao Effect Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="001a11442e4489c14a05516d1b6d" X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.0 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID, DKIM_VALID_AU, HTML_MESSAGE, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE autolearn=ham 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, 08 Jun 2017 13:31:11 +0000 Cc: Bitcoin Dev Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Replay attacks make BIP148 and BIP149 untennable X-BeenThere: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Bitcoin Protocol Discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 08 Jun 2017 06:39:01 -0000 --001a11442e4489c14a05516d1b6d Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" On Thu, Jun 8, 2017 at 6:44 AM Conner Fromknecht wrote: > I don't normally post here, but I'm sorry, if you don't see those two as > equal, then I think you have misunderstood the *entire* value proposition > of cryptocurrencies. > > The state of any cryptocurrency should entirely (and only) be defined by > its ledger. If the state of the system can be altered outside of the rules > governing its ledger, then the system isn't secure. This is true of any blockchain: you can always change the rules with the consent of the participants. > It doesn't matter whether the people making those changes are the ones > that are leading the project or not. An "irregular state change" is a fancy > term for a bailout. > > I'm sure I speak for more than myself in saying that an "irregular state > change" is equivalent to modifying the underlying ledger. Let's not let > semantics keep us from recognizing what actually took place. > It's not; modifying the ledger would rewrite history, erasing the record of the original transactions. That's a fundamentally different operation, both technically and semantically. > -Conner > > On Wed, Jun 7, 2017 at 14:14 Nick Johnson via bitcoin-dev < > bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote: > >> On Wed, Jun 7, 2017 at 5:27 PM Tao Effect wrote: >> >>> Nick, >>> >>> Please don't spread misinformation. Whatever you think of the DAO hard >>> fork, it's a simple fact that the Ethereum ledger was not edited. >>> >>> >>> This sort of email is unhelpful to this conversation, and it certainly >>> doesn't help with the perception that Ethereum is nothing but a bunch of >>> hypocritical Bankers 2.0. >>> >> >> >>> >>> Everyone knows you didn't edit Ethereum Classic, but the the hard fork, >>> which was re-branded as Ethereum, was edited. >>> >> >> That's not what I was suggesting. My point is that the ledger was never >> edited. An 'irregular state change' was added at a specific block height, >> but the ledger remains inviolate. >> >> I'm sure I don't have to explain the difference between the ledger and >> the state to you, or why it's significant that the ledger wasn't (and can't >> be, practically) modified. >> >> -Nick >> >> >>> - Greg >>> >>> -- >>> Please do not email me anything that you are not comfortable also sharing with >>> the NSA. >>> >>> On Jun 7, 2017, at 6:25 AM, Nick Johnson wrote: >>> >>> On Wed, Jun 7, 2017 at 12:02 AM Gregory Maxwell via bitcoin-dev < >>> bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote: >>> >>>> On Tue, Jun 6, 2017 at 10:39 PM, Tao Effect via bitcoin-dev >>>> wrote: >>>> > I believe the severity of replay attacks is going unvoiced and is not >>>> > understood within the bitcoin community because of their lack of >>>> experience >>>> > with them. >>>> >>>> Please don't insult our community-- the issues with replay were >>>> pointed out by us to Ethereum in advance and were cited specifically >>>> in prior hardfork discussions long before Ethereum started editing >>>> their ledger for the economic benefit of its centralized >>>> administrators. >>> >>> >>> Please don't spread misinformation. Whatever you think of the DAO hard >>> fork, it's a simple fact that the Ethereum ledger was not edited. >>> >>> -Nick Johnson >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >> bitcoin-dev mailing list >> bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org >> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev >> > --001a11442e4489c14a05516d1b6d Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
On Thu, Jun 8,= 2017 at 6:44 AM Conner Fromknecht <= conner@enigma.co> wrote:
I d= on't normally post here, but I'm sorry, if you don't see those = two as equal, then I think you have misunderstood the *entire* value propos= ition of cryptocurrencies.

The state of any cryptocurrency should e= ntirely (and only) be defined by its ledger. If the state of the system can= be altered outside of the rules governing its ledger, then the system isn&= #39;t secure.

This is true of any blockchai= n: you can always change the rules with the consent of the participants.
=C2=A0
It doesn't matter w= hether the people making those changes are the ones that are leading the pr= oject or not. An "irregular state change" is a fancy term for a b= ailout.

I'm sure I speak for more than myself in saying that an= "irregular state change" is equivalent to modifying the underlyi= ng ledger. Let's not let semantics keep us from recognizing what actual= ly took place.

It's not; modifying= the ledger would rewrite history, erasing the record of the original trans= actions. That's a fundamentally different operation, both technically a= nd semantically.


-Co= nner

On Wed, Jun 7, 201= 7 at 14:14 Nick Johnson via bitcoin-dev <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundati= on.org> wrote:
On Wed, Jun 7, 2017 at 5:27 PM Tao Effect <contact@taoeffect.com> wrote:
N= ick,

Please do= n't spread misinformation. Whatever you think of the DAO hard fork, it&= #39;s a simple fact that the Ethereum ledger was not edited.
<= div dir=3D"ltr">

This sort of= email is unhelpful to this conversation, and it certainly doesn't help= with the perception that Ethereum is nothing but a bunch of hypocritical B= ankers 2.0.
=C2=A0
<= div>

Everyon= e knows you didn't edit Ethereum Classic, but the the hard fork, which = was re-branded as Ethereum, was edited.
=

That's not what I was suggesting. My point is that the le= dger was never edited. An 'irregular state change' was added at a s= pecific block height, but the ledger remains inviolate.

I'm sure I don't have to explain the difference between the l= edger and the state to you, or why it's significant that the ledger was= n't (and can't be, practically) modified.

-Nick


- Greg
<= /div>

--
Please do not ema= il me anything that you are not comfortable also sharing=C2= =A0with the NSA.

On Jun 7, 2017, at 6:25 AM, Nick Johnson <nick@ethereum.org> wrote:=

On Wed, Jun 7, 2017 at 12:02 AM Gregory Maxwell = via bitcoin-dev <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
On Tue, Jun 6, 2017 at 10:39 PM, Tao = Effect via bitcoin-dev
<bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
> I believe the severity of replay attacks is going unvoiced and is not<= br> > understood within the bitcoin community because of their lack of exper= ience
> with them.

Please don't insult our community-- the issues with replay were
pointed out by us to Ethereum in advance and were cited specifically
in prior hardfork discussions long before Ethereum started editing
their ledger for the economic benefit of its centralized
administrators.
=C2=A0=C2=A0
Please don't sp= read misinformation. Whatever you think of the DAO hard fork, it's a si= mple fact that the Ethereum ledger was not edited.

-Nick Johnson

_______________________________________________
bitcoin-dev mailing list
= bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mail= man/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
--001a11442e4489c14a05516d1b6d--