1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
184
185
186
187
188
189
190
191
192
193
194
195
196
197
198
199
200
201
202
203
204
205
206
207
208
209
210
211
212
213
214
215
216
217
218
219
220
221
222
223
|
Return-Path: <earonesty@gmail.com>
Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org
[172.17.192.35])
by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9B4008F5
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Fri, 26 May 2017 14:39:32 +0000 (UTC)
X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6
Received: from mail-qk0-f178.google.com (mail-qk0-f178.google.com
[209.85.220.178])
by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 91AF7134
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Fri, 26 May 2017 14:39:31 +0000 (UTC)
Received: by mail-qk0-f178.google.com with SMTP id y201so8865428qka.0
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Fri, 26 May 2017 07:39:31 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025;
h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id
:subject:to:cc;
bh=4skAs6LPkRgi25hiQecPpbb0B9++P3lj0Z3S95UE6Pc=;
b=ZqXDhkpGjJ23nShAN3XR9n+cb/TnH0lZngrzG8jHqPszmv0CFcyU+nV4LgClxvpBWd
6QW4FEL/kVXCzBSIZhGxgM6dNI0o+L0awK9s6wIdafHQcHv9qsqAlm0Tcx3FTX4ZxYuK
4sZt2LlYBVbtyW2BUHMOUVk1icEhnVvdPuFqTOAHMX+GP2dx0jVEP0IhNKOGNbGYDGk/
3LqwOfjXDv/xbomsOtc32GdN+4vptkYKvaxgNVPIUkUSsr8xAZtZI8DsfJaVUZhh6QdU
HUABwYTT/FwPHMP9Kl1az3hGgBRBv18+C7abda7EPBeSmBDH4Kx+h0ybhIyX9UYXFJnz
Gw/g==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
d=1e100.net; s=20161025;
h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:from
:date:message-id:subject:to:cc;
bh=4skAs6LPkRgi25hiQecPpbb0B9++P3lj0Z3S95UE6Pc=;
b=GxG8oT6NyNG85jH7Z3q0vvd+sKjBQvY2vy9WDGO9CSc+SepHmPc6akki0irWujcVob
0ubIqyWDe7e0T4USIRGi/N1OeuffXLGFE2etAbjcnUgocYhdhsiw5I9EhizM9C9MCGS1
M4PhknAwilWMMbqVQL5W+CsJ1bsMls858LJp0p5f5DTdf+V9N3Fg9xWHK6umi4AlJfxl
laGme/GkYbiNMK7DTLibgYo/4HE/7wrZjOVwvfCjksf7aYu0SQdXqlIb6+GEidSva4aq
3hLXdPYPzCfN4RpGCGFqqxPtjP+KsMRPfCIZcG4BeYGQXqbCQDiTvQDzc00XYSspxGRq
3QvA==
X-Gm-Message-State: AODbwcB8A+2tA0HL0IBfvEXkKlbrx9vE5aL2VNtFmXKsTEN0uhibR0e7
t3z0cp9Kpy0tbtrmoE2IkRZjC3TRAA==
X-Received: by 10.55.1.79 with SMTP id 76mr2471624qkb.69.1495809570762; Fri,
26 May 2017 07:39:30 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Sender: earonesty@gmail.com
Received: by 10.237.48.102 with HTTP; Fri, 26 May 2017 07:39:30 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <2575282.hbjRTIzDqY@strawberry>
References: <D0299438-E848-4696-B323-8D0E810AE491@gmail.com>
<CAFmyj8zNkPj3my3CLzkXdpJ1xkD0GQk8ODg09qYnnj_ONGUtsQ@mail.gmail.com>
<2E6BB6FA-65FF-497F-8AEA-4CC8655BAE69@gmail.com>
<2575282.hbjRTIzDqY@strawberry>
From: Erik Aronesty <erik@q32.com>
Date: Fri, 26 May 2017 10:39:30 -0400
X-Google-Sender-Auth: MygnbLdoEJKf-3tEOVMtgRgnbtQ
Message-ID: <CAJowKgKAN8ti8_BQj=7r=uAAegfg=0AisbhQghNA5L5t51c8PA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Tom Zander <tomz@freedommail.ch>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="001a11451c0e1df90605506e4ecb"
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.4 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED,
DKIM_VALID, FREEMAIL_FROM, HTML_MESSAGE, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE,
RCVD_IN_SORBS_SPAM autolearn=no version=3.3.1
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on
smtp1.linux-foundation.org
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Fri, 26 May 2017 14:49:53 +0000
Cc: Bitcoin Protocol Discussion <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Emergency Deployment of SegWit as a partial
mitigation of CVE-2017-9230
X-BeenThere: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Bitcoin Protocol Discussion <bitcoin-dev.lists.linuxfoundation.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/options/bitcoin-dev>,
<mailto:bitcoin-dev-request@lists.linuxfoundation.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/>
List-Post: <mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
List-Help: <mailto:bitcoin-dev-request@lists.linuxfoundation.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev>,
<mailto:bitcoin-dev-request@lists.linuxfoundation.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 26 May 2017 14:39:32 -0000
--001a11451c0e1df90605506e4ecb
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Linking a bit4 MASF with a bit4 "lock in of a hard fork in 6 months" is
something that will simply never happen for basic engineering reasons.
Spoonet, an oft-quoted hard fork that actually has some strong support, is
a much better candidate for the code base - but not of the supposed
supporters of bit4 MASF seem to be ready to roll up their sleeves and do
any work at all. I mean, if they really had "millions" for development,
they could just hire dome developers and built it correctly, right? But
they aren't ... instead they are pumping money into "bcoin", which doesn't
yet have any of the protections needed to get consensus. Maybe it will
some day.
Claiming that miners support segwit is disingenuous ... considering that if
they supported it, they would be signaling for it today... instead of
distracting the community with fake proposals that have no peer-reviewed
code.
On Fri, May 26, 2017 at 5:21 AM, Tom Zander via bitcoin-dev <
bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
> On Friday, 26 May 2017 10:02:27 CEST Cameron Garnham via bitcoin-dev wrot=
e:
> > So, I started searching for the motivations of such a large amount of t=
he
> > mining hash-rate holding a position that isn=E2=80=99t at-all represent=
ed in the
> > wider Bitcoin Community. My study of ASICBOOST lead to a =E2=80=98bingo=
=E2=80=99 moment:
> > If one assumes that the 67% of the hash rate that refuse to signal for
> > SegWit are using ASICBOOST. The entire picture of this political
> > stalemate became much more understandable.
>
> I=E2=80=99m uncomfortable with your =E2=80=9Cbingo=E2=80=9D moment, and y=
our huge assumption to get
> to make it fit.
> The reality is that we have seen repeatedly that the miners are stating
> they
> are Ok with an ASICBOOST disabling change.
> The larger mining industry has just this week come to consensus about a
> better way to activate SegWit! Referring to the New York consensus
> meeting!!
> https://medium.com/@DCGco/bitcoin-scaling-agreement-at-
> consensus-2017-133521fe9a77
>
> I question your conclusions of miners not supporting SegWit because of
> ASICBOOST, the evidence shows this accusation to be false.
>
> You openly admitting here that you use ASICBOOST as a tool to push SegWit
> is
> further making me uncomfortable. Your intention may be pure, but the
> methods
> are not.
> And on that I agree with Andreas, that taints this proposal.
>
> --
> Tom Zander
> Blog: https://zander.github.io
> Vlog: https://vimeo.com/channels/tomscryptochannel
> _______________________________________________
> bitcoin-dev mailing list
> bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
>
--001a11451c0e1df90605506e4ecb
Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
<div dir=3D"ltr">Linking a bit4 MASF with a bit4 "lock in of a hard fo=
rk in 6 months" is something that will simply never happen for basic e=
ngineering reasons.=C2=A0 <br><br>Spoonet, an oft-quoted hard fork that act=
ually has some strong support, is a much better candidate for the code base=
- but not of the supposed supporters of bit4 MASF seem to be ready to roll=
up their sleeves and do any work at all.=C2=A0=C2=A0 I mean, if they reall=
y had "millions" for development, they could just hire dome devel=
opers and built it correctly, right?=C2=A0=C2=A0 But they aren't ... in=
stead they are pumping money into "bcoin", which doesn't yet =
have any of the protections needed to get consensus.=C2=A0=C2=A0 Maybe it w=
ill some day. <br><br>Claiming that miners support segwit is disingenuous .=
.. considering that if they supported it, they would be signaling for it to=
day... instead of distracting the community with fake proposals that have n=
o peer-reviewed code.<br><br></div><div class=3D"gmail_extra"><br><div clas=
s=3D"gmail_quote">On Fri, May 26, 2017 at 5:21 AM, Tom Zander via bitcoin-d=
ev <span dir=3D"ltr"><<a href=3D"mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundatio=
n.org" target=3D"_blank">bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org</a>></spa=
n> wrote:<br><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;b=
order-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><span class=3D"">On Friday, 26 =
May 2017 10:02:27 CEST Cameron Garnham via bitcoin-dev wrote:<br>
> So, I started searching for the motivations of such a large amount of =
the<br>
> mining hash-rate holding a position that isn=E2=80=99t at-all represen=
ted in the<br>
> wider Bitcoin Community. My study of ASICBOOST lead to a =E2=80=98bing=
o=E2=80=99 moment:<br>
> If one assumes that the 67% of the hash rate that refuse to signal for=
<br>
> SegWit are using ASICBOOST. The entire picture of this political<br>
> stalemate became much more understandable.<br>
<br>
</span>I=E2=80=99m uncomfortable with your =E2=80=9Cbingo=E2=80=9D moment, =
and your huge assumption to get<br>
to make it fit.<br>
The reality is that we have seen repeatedly that the miners are stating the=
y<br>
are Ok with an ASICBOOST disabling change.<br>
The larger mining industry has just this week come to consensus about a<br>
better way to activate SegWit! Referring to the New York consensus meeting!=
!<br>
<a href=3D"https://medium.com/@DCGco/bitcoin-scaling-agreement-at-consensus=
-2017-133521fe9a77" rel=3D"noreferrer" target=3D"_blank">https://medium.com=
/@DCGco/<wbr>bitcoin-scaling-agreement-at-<wbr>consensus-2017-133521fe9a77<=
/a><br>
<br>
I question your conclusions of miners not supporting SegWit because of<br>
ASICBOOST, the evidence shows this accusation to be false.<br>
<br>
You openly admitting here that you use ASICBOOST as a tool to push SegWit i=
s<br>
further making me uncomfortable. Your intention may be pure, but the method=
s<br>
are not.<br>
And on that I agree with Andreas, that taints this proposal.<br>
<span class=3D"HOEnZb"><font color=3D"#888888"><br>
--<br>
Tom Zander<br>
Blog: <a href=3D"https://zander.github.io" rel=3D"noreferrer" target=3D"_bl=
ank">https://zander.github.io</a><br>
Vlog: <a href=3D"https://vimeo.com/channels/tomscryptochannel" rel=3D"noref=
errer" target=3D"_blank">https://vimeo.com/channels/<wbr>tomscryptochannel<=
/a><br>
</font></span><div class=3D"HOEnZb"><div class=3D"h5">_____________________=
_________<wbr>_________________<br>
bitcoin-dev mailing list<br>
<a href=3D"mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org">bitcoin-dev@lists.=
<wbr>linuxfoundation.org</a><br>
<a href=3D"https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev" =
rel=3D"noreferrer" target=3D"_blank">https://lists.linuxfoundation.<wbr>org=
/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-<wbr>dev</a><br>
</div></div></blockquote></div><br></div>
--001a11451c0e1df90605506e4ecb--
|
