Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-4.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of gmail.com
	designates 209.85.218.50 as permitted sender)
	client-ip=209.85.218.50; envelope-from=mh.in.england@gmail.com;
	helo=mail-oi0-f50.google.com; 
MIME-Version: 1.0
Sender: mh.in.england@gmail.com
In-Reply-To: <54344751.708@certimix.com>
References: <543438E4.8080501@certimix.com> <54343948.1030400@certimix.com>
	<CAAS2fgRdB_4XS9Q+MFLsNtXvSiYS9Ymh9SAPzcJ5aae+89vxFA@mail.gmail.com>
	<54344751.708@certimix.com>
Date: Wed, 8 Oct 2014 12:19:10 +0200
Message-ID: <CANEZrP0soZPGeP5HBoJVSdcKOTWJEB8LDkTDNdLDHcjysjpmcg@mail.gmail.com>
From: Mike Hearn <mike@plan99.net>
To: Sergio Lerner <sergiolerner@certimix.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=089e01183cba8e420a0504e6a538
Cc: bitcoin-development <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>
Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] The Bitcoin Freeze on Transaction Attack
	(FRONT)
Precedence: list

--089e01183cba8e420a0504e6a538
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8

>
> Yes, you're right. I didn't consider that case. But the problem is that
> this is not automatic. Currently there is a clear division between
> miners how will not take the kickback (irrrational) and miners who will
> (rational).


This seems to come up a lot. Your definition of rational is a short term
rationality only. I can pass up a short term profit in return for more
stable longer term profits and be completely rational, by a reasonable
definition of the word.

I think it's clear by now that if most or even some miners decide to
prioritise short term profit over the long term health of the system (i.e.
longer term profit), Bitcoin basically doesn't work right. This attack is
only one of several such things that can happen. This certainly can be a
problem when difficulty is skyrocketing because a mining investment is I
guess quite short term anyway, but presumably at some point the mining arms
race will end and miners will become more settled in.

--089e01183cba8e420a0504e6a538
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:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #c=
cc solid;padding-left:1ex">Yes, you&#39;re right. I didn&#39;t consider tha=
t case. But the problem is that<br>
this is not automatic. Currently there is a clear division between<br>
miners how will not take the kickback (irrrational) and miners who will<br>
(rational).</blockquote><div><br></div><div>This seems to come up a lot. Yo=
ur definition of rational is a short term rationality only. I can pass up a=
 short term profit in return for more stable longer term profits and be com=
pletely rational, by a reasonable definition of the word.</div><div><br></d=
iv><div>I think it&#39;s clear by now that if most or even some miners deci=
de to prioritise short term profit over the long term health of the system =
(i.e. longer term profit), Bitcoin basically doesn&#39;t work right. This a=
ttack is only one of several such things that can happen. This certainly ca=
n be a problem when difficulty is skyrocketing because a mining investment =
is I guess quite short term anyway, but presumably at some point the mining=
 arms race will end and miners will become more settled in.</div></div></di=
v></div>

--089e01183cba8e420a0504e6a538--