Return-Path: Received: from smtp2.osuosl.org (smtp2.osuosl.org [140.211.166.133]) by lists.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 17846C002D for ; Fri, 21 Oct 2022 00:26:21 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by smtp2.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D1949408C0 for ; Fri, 21 Oct 2022 00:26:20 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 smtp2.osuosl.org D1949408C0 Authentication-Results: smtp2.osuosl.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key, unprotected) header.d=messagingengine.com header.i=@messagingengine.com header.a=rsa-sha256 header.s=fm3 header.b=gXAkEVPu X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at osuosl.org X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.602 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.602 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Received: from smtp2.osuosl.org ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (smtp2.osuosl.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Yc-Sr1YJruZb for ; Fri, 21 Oct 2022 00:26:19 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: domain auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.8.0 DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 smtp2.osuosl.org A2C27400D9 Received: from out3-smtp.messagingengine.com (out3-smtp.messagingengine.com [66.111.4.27]) by smtp2.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A2C27400D9 for ; Fri, 21 Oct 2022 00:26:19 +0000 (UTC) Received: from compute2.internal (compute2.nyi.internal [10.202.2.46]) by mailout.nyi.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9DA065C0084; Thu, 20 Oct 2022 20:26:15 -0400 (EDT) Received: from mailfrontend1 ([10.202.2.162]) by compute2.internal (MEProxy); Thu, 20 Oct 2022 20:26:15 -0400 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d= messagingengine.com; h=cc:cc:content-type:date:date:feedback-id :feedback-id:from:from:in-reply-to:in-reply-to:message-id :mime-version:references:reply-to:sender:subject:subject:to:to :x-me-proxy:x-me-proxy:x-me-sender:x-me-sender:x-sasl-enc; s= fm3; t=1666311975; x=1666398375; bh=eA1mHeWFAn0W74/l/lwEkw7iPMV/ kWCRwORqZyAc+Bk=; b=gXAkEVPuGUL86VbXqWqxRAKQCVYsOq9rjcZygu4VKuSV ytbmVJiMgYFUFBzrIc/kKohkaTqTQMavmHWRtcryWXEoewNV6wDx4slR68ePccKb 1CF68znFo786LsJF197awklMkeX4wtcWwBexNXDrXyvDmAzkuxWHyG3anIAbtKti pY4FqSaghiRJZ7pYDgHvb0765ZN5GRBqIYBuqRUtMh/hGNPVM95i+jMmW4lqfiyG KVtb9RWGLFvUc9ubBkjMPHQlzMeUxkWHJB9pjCezhmcGkKaKQNd6I/eyiKrVlJEy 0mD/R+jnEutqq8mS+4qlzz82x8GEM8yhfXq4njeEtA== X-ME-Sender: X-ME-Received: X-ME-Proxy-Cause: gggruggvucftvghtrhhoucdtuddrgedvfedrfeeljedgfeeiucetufdoteggodetrfdotf fvucfrrhhofhhilhgvmecuhfgrshhtofgrihhlpdfqfgfvpdfurfetoffkrfgpnffqhgen uceurghilhhouhhtmecufedttdenucesvcftvggtihhpihgvnhhtshculddquddttddmne cujfgurhepfffhvfevuffkfhggtggujgesghdtreertddtvdenucfhrhhomheprfgvthgv rhcuvfhougguuceophgvthgvsehpvghtvghrthhouggurdhorhhgqeenucggtffrrghtth gvrhhnpedttdegtdffteeukeffhfffkeekiefhteduvdetjeeujeffgeevgefhudetjefh veenucffohhmrghinhepghhithhhuhgsrdgtohhmpdhpvghtvghrthhouggurdhorhhgne cuvehluhhsthgvrhfuihiivgeptdenucfrrghrrghmpehmrghilhhfrhhomhepuhhsvghr sehpvghtvghrthhouggurdhorhhg X-ME-Proxy: Feedback-ID: i525146e8:Fastmail Received: by mail.messagingengine.com (Postfix) with ESMTPA; Thu, 20 Oct 2022 20:26:14 -0400 (EDT) Received: by localhost (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 2D74F204BA; Thu, 20 Oct 2022 20:26:14 -0400 (EDT) Date: Thu, 20 Oct 2022 20:26:14 -0400 From: Peter Todd To: Jeremy Rubin Message-ID: References: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha512; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="/T6c3ZEKEW6oe8A3" Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Cc: Bitcoin Protocol Discussion Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Does Bitcoin require or have an honest majority or a rational one? (re rbf) X-BeenThere: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: Bitcoin Protocol Discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 21 Oct 2022 00:26:21 -0000 --/T6c3ZEKEW6oe8A3 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Thu, Oct 20, 2022 at 04:54:00PM -0700, Jeremy Rubin wrote: > The difference between honest majority and longest chain is that the > longest chain bug was something acknowledged by Satoshi & patched > https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/commit/40cd0369419323f8d7385950e20342e= 998c994e1#diff-623e3fd6da1a45222eeec71496747b31R420 > . >=20 >=20 > OTOH, we have more explicit references that the honest majority really > should be thought of as good guys vs bad guys... e.g. The point is Satoshi got a lot of very fundamental stuff wrong. Bringing up what Satoshi wrote now, almost 14 years later, misleads less-technical read= ers into thinking our understanding of Bitcoin is still based on that early, incorrect, understanding. Incidentally, you realize that it was _Satoshi_ who added RBF to Bitcoin wi= th nSequence replacements. My contribution was to fix that obviously broken de= sign with fee-based RBF (with nSequence a transaction could be replaced up to 4 billion times, using essentially unlimited P2P bandwidth; it was a terrible idea). > I do think the case can be fairly made for full RBF, but if you don't grok > the above maybe you won't have as much empathy for people who built a > business around particular aspects of the Bitcoin network that they feel > are now being changed. They have every right to be mad about that and make > disagreements known and argue for why we should preserve these properties. Those people run mild sybil attacks on the network in their efforts to "mitigate risk" by monitoring propagation; fundamentally doing so is centralizing and unfair, as only a small number of companies can do that without DoS attacking the P2P network. It's pretty obvious that reliance to zeroconf is harmful to Bitcoin, and people trying to do that have repeatedly taken big losses when their risk mitigations turned out to not work. Their = only right to be mad comes from the 1st Ammendment. > As someone who wants for Bitcoin to be a system which doesn't arbitrarily > change rules based on the whims of others, I think it important that we c= an > steelman and provide strong cases for why our actions might be in the > wrong, so that we make sure our justifications are not only well-justifie= d, > but that we can communicate them clearly to all participants in a global > value network. =2E..and the easiest way to avoid Bitcoin being a system that doesn't arbit= rarily change rules, is to rely on economically rational rules that aren't likely = to change! --=20 https://petertodd.org 'peter'[:-1]@petertodd.org --/T6c3ZEKEW6oe8A3 Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iQEzBAEBCgAdFiEEFcyURjhyM68BBPYTJIFAPaXwkfsFAmNR5yEACgkQJIFAPaXw kfsk+wf/TJVocaamIIrOKJM2cuuyYhSRUFEbncjWJ7IQ6AaYkY81TmPJGOMU5hm3 LxoTZDfb/ILaH3SMydiDmGHwhKrShDmb9R1mXQ/an3U206DHyNlQrTwenHw7E94r pAdbCC+C+FS6hlKJ8YTZqYIe48R4kG44mbaQJwZDdiu5gghsgyRt06x1D33Cjt8Z Pk5vUPY2vWU6pNcBYBb4hStW2ALWee2uNv13gWRsUnkiQhLdHhRCMh27e0ZI6rAw BiMzbHSe2fwM3w3wEvjgvJEHf3t9HDTuNU8MuKOjYQ1Rl1XQTmUPz1FzUXez1v6w 2ZKeVtWRsZFpRlEvv4yhM/rrcgd/Og== =h0oo -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --/T6c3ZEKEW6oe8A3--