Return-Path: Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org [172.17.192.35]) by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 85334486 for ; Thu, 20 Aug 2015 14:25:26 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from wp059.webpack.hosteurope.de (wp059.webpack.hosteurope.de [80.237.132.66]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5D43DEE for ; Thu, 20 Aug 2015 14:25:25 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [37.143.74.116] (helo=[192.168.2.15]); authenticated by wp059.webpack.hosteurope.de running ExIM with esmtpsa (TLS1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) id 1ZSQmQ-0003A2-Pw; Thu, 20 Aug 2015 16:25:22 +0200 Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 8.2 \(2102\)) Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_8A9442D6-22B0-411D-B59A-462100C944F2"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg=pgp-sha512 X-Pgp-Agent: GPGMail 2.5.1 From: Tamas Blummer In-Reply-To: <55D5C843.5040204@bitcoins.info> Date: Thu, 20 Aug 2015 16:25:21 +0200 Message-Id: <4F2015D1-1941-4934-BDD7-292B8A7C18EC@bitsofproof.com> References: <55D1167B.1060107@gmail.com> <55D124D7.4050209@gmail.com> <61AD0CE6-014E-44E2-B9C7-00B35D2E09CC@petertodd.org> <55D4A3BD.2060706@sky-ip.org> <55D5AB11.3090307@sky-ip.org> <55D5BAE1.4090101@bitcoins.info> <55D5C843.5040204@bitcoins.info> To: Milly Bitcoin X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.2102) X-bounce-key: webpack.hosteurope.de; tamas@bitsofproof.com; 1440080725; f806ca0f; X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,HTML_MESSAGE, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW autolearn=ham version=3.3.1 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on smtp1.linux-foundation.org Cc: Bitcoin Dev Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Bitcoin XT 0.11A X-BeenThere: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Bitcoin Development Discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 20 Aug 2015 14:25:26 -0000 --Apple-Mail=_8A9442D6-22B0-411D-B59A-462100C944F2 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail=_ABE59D77-F17C-4AF1-AF92-453BF41A5AF0" --Apple-Mail=_ABE59D77-F17C-4AF1-AF92-453BF41A5AF0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii POW is by design the voting mechanism for the valid chain continuation. Many rightfully dislike that the same voting mechanism is used on the = validity rules, since ideally validators (non-mining full nodes), SPV user and even those having an = investment in their cold wallet would all have a vote. That ideal voting mechanism is not yet in the protocol. Before XT we used discussions and an informal consensus of those with = commit access to github to evolve Bitcoin. The decision, not the discussion, is now suggested to be replaced with = POW vote with XT. It is not hard to see problems with both approaches. If XT comes closer to miner majority, validators will also be forced to = take side, so they will be able to express their vote. I think that most Bitcoin entrepreneurs will pick XT if Core = has no comparable offer to scale transactions per second. XT, Not-XT and a Core with some not-BIP101 offer will potentially set = the stage for the perfect hard fork storm. I still believe, that the idea of Bitcoin is powerful enough to weather = that storm. Tamas Blummer > On Aug 20, 2015, at 14:29, Milly Bitcoin via bitcoin-dev = wrote: >=20 >> Security is provided via POW. >=20 > POW is only one aspect of security and that algorithm was created by = developers and adopted by miners. Developers provide security by = creating an algorithm and miners provide security by adopting it. If = the developers and miners decided to do something insecure then Bitcoin = will be insecure. POW is not some outside force. >=20 > The security of Bitcoin as a system is a very complex subject that = involve a number of factors that are the result of actions by humans. >=20 > Russ >=20 >=20 > _______________________________________________ > bitcoin-dev mailing list > bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org > https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev >=20 --Apple-Mail=_ABE59D77-F17C-4AF1-AF92-453BF41A5AF0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii
POW is by design the voting mechanism for the = valid chain continuation. 

Many rightfully dislike that the same = voting mechanism is used on the validity rules, since = ideally 
validators (non-mining full nodes), = SPV user and even those having an investment in their cold = wallet 
would all have a vote.

That ideal voting = mechanism is not yet in the protocol.

Before XT we used discussions and an = informal consensus of those with commit access to github to evolve = Bitcoin.
The decision, not the discussion, is now = suggested to be replaced with POW vote with XT.

It is not hard to see problems with = both approaches. 

If XT comes closer to miner majority, validators will also be = forced to take side, so they will be able to express
their vote. I think that most Bitcoin entrepreneurs will pick = XT if Core has no comparable offer 
to scale = transactions per second.

XT, Not-XT and a Core with some not-BIP101 offer will = potentially set the stage for the perfect hard fork = storm. 

I = still believe, that the idea of Bitcoin is powerful enough to weather = that storm.

Tamas Blummer

On Aug 20, 2015, at 14:29, Milly Bitcoin via = bitcoin-dev <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:

Security is provided via POW.

POW is only one aspect of = security and that algorithm was created by developers and adopted by = miners.  Developers provide security by creating an algorithm and = miners provide security by adopting it.  If the developers and = miners decided to do something insecure then Bitcoin will be insecure. =  POW is not some outside force.

The = security of Bitcoin as a system is a very complex subject that involve a = number of factors that are the result of actions by humans.

Russ


_______________________________________________
bitcoin-dev mailing list
bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev<= br class=3D"">

= --Apple-Mail=_ABE59D77-F17C-4AF1-AF92-453BF41A5AF0-- --Apple-Mail=_8A9442D6-22B0-411D-B59A-462100C944F2 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: attachment; filename=signature.asc Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name=signature.asc Content-Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Comment: GPGTools - https://gpgtools.org iQEcBAEBCgAGBQJV1eNSAAoJEPZykcUXcTkcAjkH/AsMg9728E2D9dGuQrGNnXwj rCEvTPaKfTRWNIM+bRFmzbKC3QE2jrKrxEBO4mhdTiytC/mTj8IakVOQpueetXEy tf16kW6/BHMI9O3bpD2g7WvdFyknk7YNxl4J3UWAonHwHUvfJOi4x9YQICzLFkyX mL7eX6LLE5bMyFoCTia5nO7CSwfa3uzTehQQY/6zZu0qYHFIV5enJPiZlptM4kK9 7O6RiIZrdNs6Nymyw8U1BKf6ZpGPYJGWMwctCguAk0cEqbsqGVwD+gCN3GjWvLQk gfdY7NmGNViOt4vzeTpTwBqfUtYTVoULTxj1rF/7Ahk5354cVvMiexfsy3Pcv58= =S9An -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --Apple-Mail=_8A9442D6-22B0-411D-B59A-462100C944F2--