To: =?UTF-8?Q?Jorge_Tim=c3=b3n?= <jtimon@jtimon.cc>
References: <201603081904.28687.luke@dashjr.org>
	<56E0BFDC.5070604@musalbas.com> <201603100053.43822.luke@dashjr.org>
	<56E17E67.9040508@musalbas.com>
	<CABm2gDogqtOkgtjWNY6vD_Cu=dnoATtLHBS+-E8BtrNTOsPCSg@mail.gmail.com>
	<56E1A0BB.5090804@musalbas.com>
From: Mustafa Al-Bassam <mus@musalbas.com>
Message-ID: <56E1A1E4.60908@musalbas.com>
Date: Thu, 10 Mar 2016 16:33:40 +0000
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101
	Thunderbird/38.6.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <56E1A0BB.5090804@musalbas.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
	boundary="------------030309040307070407050505"
Cc: Bitcoin Dev <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] BIP 2 promotion to Final
Precedence: list

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
--------------030309040307070407050505
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit

By the way, on that basis it might be a good idea to introduce an extra
status called "deployed" to indicate when a hard fork has reached a
super-majority and is being used by the economy in practice, but not the
whole economy.

On 10/03/16 16:28, Mustafa Al-Bassam wrote:
>
>
> On 10/03/16 15:59, Jorge Timón wrote:
>>
>>
>> On Mar 10, 2016 16:51, "Mustafa Al-Bassam via bitcoin-dev"
>> <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
>>
>> > I think in general this sounds like a good definition for a hard-fork
>> > becoming active. But I can envision a situation where someone will try
>> > to be annoying about it and point to one instance of one buyer and one
>> > seller using the blockchain to buy and sell from each other, or set
>> one up.
>>
>> And all the attacker will achieve is preventing a field on a text
>> file on github from moving from "active" to "final".
>> Seems pretty stupid. Why would an attacker care so much about this?
>> Is there any way the attacker can make gains or harm bitcoin with
>> this attack?
>>
> It's extremely naive to think that just because you can't think of an
> incentive for a reason for an attack to do this, an attacker will
> never to do this. There are many people that would be willing to spend
> some time to cause some trouble for the enjoyment of it, if the attack
> is free to execute.
>
> The fact that it takes very little time and effort to prevent a BIP
> from reaching final status, means that in an base of millions of users
> it's guaranteed that some disgruntled or bored person out there will
> attack it, even if it's for the lulz.
>
> To reasonably expect that any hark fork - including an uncontroversial
> one - will be adapted by every single person in a ecosystem of
> millions of people, is wishful thinking and the BIP may as well say
> "hard fork BIPs shall never reach final status."


--------------030309040307070407050505
Content-Type: text/html; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit

<html>
  <head>
    <meta content="text/html; charset=utf-8" http-equiv="Content-Type">
  </head>
  <body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
    By the way, on that basis it might be a good idea to introduce an
    extra status called "deployed" to indicate when a hard fork has
    reached a super-majority and is being used by the economy in
    practice, but not the whole economy.<br>
    <br>
    <div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 10/03/16 16:28, Mustafa Al-Bassam
      wrote:<br>
    </div>
    <blockquote cite="mid:56E1A0BB.5090804@musalbas.com" type="cite">
      <meta content="text/html; charset=utf-8" http-equiv="Content-Type">
      <br>
      <br>
      <div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 10/03/16 15:59, Jorge Timón wrote:<br>
      </div>
      <blockquote
cite="mid:CABm2gDogqtOkgtjWNY6vD_Cu=dnoATtLHBS+-E8BtrNTOsPCSg@mail.gmail.com"
        type="cite">
        <p dir="ltr"><br>
          On Mar 10, 2016 16:51, "Mustafa Al-Bassam via bitcoin-dev"
          &lt;<a moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated"
            href="mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org">bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org</a>&gt;

          wrote:</p>
        <p dir="ltr">&gt; I think in general this sounds like a good
          definition for a hard-fork<br>
          &gt; becoming active. But I can envision a situation where
          someone will try<br>
          &gt; to be annoying about it and point to one instance of one
          buyer and one<br>
          &gt; seller using the blockchain to buy and sell from each
          other, or set one up.</p>
        <p dir="ltr">And all the attacker will achieve is preventing a
          field on a text file on github from moving from "active" to
          "final". <br>
          Seems pretty stupid. Why would an attacker care so much about
          this? Is there any way the attacker can make gains or harm
          bitcoin with this attack?</p>
      </blockquote>
      It's extremely naive to think that just because you can't think of
      an incentive for a reason for an attack to do this, an attacker
      will never to do this. There are many people that would be willing
      to spend some time to cause some trouble for the enjoyment of it,
      if the attack is free to execute.<br>
      <br>
      The fact that it takes very little time and effort to prevent a
      BIP from reaching final status, means that in an base of millions
      of users it's guaranteed that some disgruntled or bored person out
      there will attack it, even if it's for the lulz.<br>
      <br>
      To reasonably expect that any hark fork - including an
      uncontroversial one - will be adapted by every single person in a
      ecosystem of millions of people, is wishful thinking and the BIP
      may as well say "hard fork BIPs shall never reach final status."<br>
    </blockquote>
    <br>
  </body>
</html>

--------------030309040307070407050505--