summaryrefslogtreecommitdiff
path: root/34/f2b6d7ae64a38e55aa85fc7ecdb1e8866d0fe4
blob: ca514d8da1a1178e981dd8883425ba07f92e9c51 (plain)
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
224
225
226
227
228
229
230
231
232
233
234
235
236
237
238
239
240
241
242
243
244
245
246
247
248
249
250
251
252
253
254
255
256
257
258
259
260
261
262
263
264
265
266
267
268
Return-Path: <email@yancy.lol>
Received: from smtp2.osuosl.org (smtp2.osuosl.org [IPv6:2605:bc80:3010::133])
 by lists.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3A0BCC002D
 for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
 Fri, 21 Oct 2022 08:47:24 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1])
 by smtp2.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1BAA14115D
 for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
 Fri, 21 Oct 2022 08:47:24 +0000 (UTC)
DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 smtp2.osuosl.org 1BAA14115D
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at osuosl.org
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.599
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5
 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7,
 SPF_HELO_NONE=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 YrqLe8Q7kfgW
 for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
 Fri, 21 Oct 2022 08:47:22 +0000 (UTC)
X-Greylist: delayed 13:25:20 by SQLgrey-1.8.0
DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 smtp2.osuosl.org 6260B40123
Received: from relay8-d.mail.gandi.net (relay8-d.mail.gandi.net
 [217.70.183.201])
 by smtp2.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6260B40123
 for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
 Fri, 21 Oct 2022 08:47:22 +0000 (UTC)
Received: (Authenticated sender: email@yancy.lol)
 by mail.gandi.net (Postfix) with ESMTPA id 7BDB21BF210;
 Fri, 21 Oct 2022 08:47:19 +0000 (UTC)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Date: Fri, 21 Oct 2022 10:47:19 +0200
From: email@yancy.lol
To: Peter Todd <pete@petertodd.org>, Bitcoin Protocol Discussion
 <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
In-Reply-To: <Y1HnJnpW9Al1W8cP@petertodd.org>
References: <CAD5xwhjXh33AdK96eToHtDP3t_Zx5JbxCqJFbAQRRRKy6rFC2Q@mail.gmail.com>
 <Y1HLgLkCmVJQtqT+@petertodd.org>
 <CAD5xwhhiOReFJq2gOk2n5tJpD-X-x8aKGrdkdrwi1yJCis0y4g@mail.gmail.com>
 <Y1HnJnpW9Al1W8cP@petertodd.org>
Message-ID: <1f575fa24af142126507eebdf0e6b2e8@yancy.lol>
X-Sender: email@yancy.lol
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
 boundary="=_37a2996167c1835d3a565f1477d4dd82"
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Fri, 21 Oct 2022 12:11:23 +0000
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 <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, 21 Oct 2022 08:47:24 -0000

--=_37a2996167c1835d3a565f1477d4dd82
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII;
 format=flowed



> ...and the easiest way to avoid Bitcoin being a system that doesn't 
> arbitrarily
> change rules, is to rely on economically rational rules that aren't 
> likely to
> change!

Yes, I think many people on this thread have been making the same point. 
  This is the basis of the Nash Equilibrium, from what I remember.

> This, Satoshi (who doesn't really matter anyways I guess?)

It doesn't seem to me Satoshi was classically trained in CS else maybe 
he/she/they might have referenced the Nash Equilibrium.  Looking at some 
of the other references, including a statistics book titled "An 
Introduction to Probability Theory and its Applications" from 1957 makes 
me think this Satoshi person was closer in training and practice to a 
mathematician.

Cheers,
-Yancy

On 2022-10-21 02:26, Peter Todd via bitcoin-dev wrote:

> 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/40cd0369419323f8d7385950e20342e998c994e1#diff-623e3fd6da1a45222eeec71496747b31R420
>> .
>> 
>> 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 
> readers
> 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 with
> nSequence replacements. My contribution was to fix that obviously 
> broken design
> 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 can
>> 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-justified,
>> but that we can communicate them clearly to all participants in a 
>> global
>> value network.
> 
> ...and the easiest way to avoid Bitcoin being a system that doesn't 
> arbitrarily
> change rules, is to rely on economically rational rules that aren't 
> likely to
> change!
> 
> _______________________________________________
> bitcoin-dev mailing list
> bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
--=_37a2996167c1835d3a565f1477d4dd82
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8

<html><head><meta http-equiv=3D"Content-Type" content=3D"text/html; charset=
=3DUTF-8" /></head><body style=3D'font-size: 10pt; font-family: Verdana,Gen=
eva,sans-serif'>
<blockquote type=3D"cite" style=3D"padding: 0 0.4em; border-left: #1010ff 2=
px solid; margin: 0">
<div class=3D"pre" style=3D"margin: 0; padding: 0; font-family: monospace">=
=2E..and the easiest way to avoid Bitcoin being a system that doesn't arbit=
rarily<br />change rules, is to rely on economically rational rules that ar=
en't likely to<br />change!</div>
</blockquote>
<div class=3D"pre" style=3D"margin: 0; padding: 0; font-family: monospace">=
&nbsp;</div>
<div class=3D"pre" style=3D"margin: 0; padding: 0; font-family: monospace">=
Yes, I think many people on this thread have been making the same point.&nb=
sp; This is the basis of the Nash Equilibrium, from what I remember.</div>
<div class=3D"pre" style=3D"margin: 0; padding: 0; font-family: monospace">=
&nbsp;</div>
<div class=3D"pre" style=3D"margin: 0; padding: 0; font-family: monospace">
<blockquote type=3D"cite" style=3D"padding: 0 0.4em; border-left: #1010ff 2=
px solid; margin: 0">
<div dir=3D"auto">This, Satoshi (who doesn't really matter anyways I guess?=
)</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
<div class=3D"pre" style=3D"margin: 0; padding: 0; font-family: monospace">=
&nbsp;</div>
<div class=3D"pre" style=3D"margin: 0; padding: 0; font-family: monospace">=
It doesn't seem to me Satoshi was classically trained in CS else maybe he/s=
he/they might have referenced the Nash Equilibrium.&nbsp; Looking at some o=
f the other references, including a statistics book titled <span style=3D"l=
eft: 355.467px; top: 759.2px; font-size: 10pt; font-family: serif; transfor=
m: scaleX(0.796397); color: #252525;">"An Introduction to Probability Theor=
y and its Applications" from 1957</span> makes me think this Satoshi person=
 was closer in training and practice to a mathematician.</div>
<div class=3D"pre" style=3D"margin: 0; padding: 0; font-family: monospace">=
&nbsp;</div>
<div class=3D"pre" style=3D"margin: 0; padding: 0; font-family: monospace">=
Cheers,</div>
<div class=3D"pre" style=3D"margin: 0; padding: 0; font-family: monospace">=
-Yancy</div>
<div class=3D"pre" style=3D"margin: 0; padding: 0; font-family: monospace">=
&nbsp;</div>
<div class=3D"pre" style=3D"margin: 0; padding: 0; font-family: monospace">=
On 2022-10-21 02:26, Peter Todd via bitcoin-dev wrote:
<blockquote type=3D"cite" style=3D"padding: 0 0.4em; border-left: #1010ff 2=
px solid; margin: 0">On Thu, Oct 20, 2022 at 04:54:00PM -0700, Jeremy Rubin=
 wrote:
<blockquote type=3D"cite" style=3D"padding: 0 0.4em; border-left: #1010ff 2=
px solid; margin: 0">The difference between honest majority and longest cha=
in is that the<br />longest chain bug was something acknowledged by Satoshi=
 &amp; patched<br /><a href=3D"https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/commit/40=
cd0369419323f8d7385950e20342e998c994e1#diff-623e3fd6da1a45222eeec71496747b3=
1R420" target=3D"_blank" rel=3D"noopener noreferrer">https://github.com/bit=
coin/bitcoin/commit/40cd0369419323f8d7385950e20342e998c994e1#diff-623e3fd6d=
a1a45222eeec71496747b31R420</a><br />.<br /><br /><br />OTOH, we have more =
explicit references that the honest majority really<br />should be thought =
of as good guys vs bad guys... e.g.</blockquote>
<br />The point is Satoshi got a lot of very fundamental stuff wrong. Bring=
ing up<br />what Satoshi wrote now, almost 14 years later, misleads less-te=
chnical readers<br />into thinking our understanding of Bitcoin is still ba=
sed on that early,<br />incorrect, understanding.<br /><br />Incidentally, =
you realize that it was _Satoshi_ who added RBF to Bitcoin with<br />nSeque=
nce replacements. My contribution was to fix that obviously broken design<b=
r />with fee-based RBF (with nSequence a transaction could be replaced up t=
o 4<br />billion times, using essentially unlimited P2P bandwidth; it was a=
 terrible<br />idea).<br /><br />
<blockquote type=3D"cite" style=3D"padding: 0 0.4em; border-left: #1010ff 2=
px solid; margin: 0">I do think the case can be fairly made for full RBF, b=
ut if you don't grok<br />the above maybe you won't have as much empathy fo=
r people who built a<br />business around particular aspects of the Bitcoin=
 network that they feel<br />are now being changed. They have every right t=
o be mad about that and make<br />disagreements known and argue for why we =
should preserve these properties.</blockquote>
<br />Those people run mild sybil attacks on the network in their efforts t=
o<br />"mitigate risk" by monitoring propagation; fundamentally doing so is=
<br />centralizing and unfair, as only a small number of companies can do t=
hat<br />without DoS attacking the P2P network. It's pretty obvious that re=
liance to<br />zeroconf is harmful to Bitcoin, and people trying to do that=
 have repeatedly<br />taken big losses when their risk mitigations turned o=
ut to not work. Their only<br />right to be mad comes from the 1st Ammendme=
nt.<br /><br />
<blockquote type=3D"cite" style=3D"padding: 0 0.4em; border-left: #1010ff 2=
px solid; margin: 0">As someone who wants for Bitcoin to be a system which =
doesn't arbitrarily<br />change rules based on the whims of others, I think=
 it important that we can<br />steelman and provide strong cases for why ou=
r actions might be in the<br />wrong, so that we make sure our justificatio=
ns are not only well-justified,<br />but that we can communicate them clear=
ly to all participants in a global<br />value network.</blockquote>
<br />...and the easiest way to avoid Bitcoin being a system that doesn't a=
rbitrarily<br />change rules, is to rely on economically rational rules tha=
t aren't likely to<br />change!<br /><br />________________________________=
_______________<br />bitcoin-dev mailing list<br /><a href=3D"mailto:bitcoi=
n-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org">bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org</a><=
br /><a href=3D"https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-=
dev" target=3D"_blank" rel=3D"noopener noreferrer">https://lists.linuxfound=
ation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev</a></blockquote>
</div>
</body></html>

--=_37a2996167c1835d3a565f1477d4dd82--