path: root/36/116ee8a436311c2b4596ce2e2ce9c2d5cb7fd6

Return-Path: <j@toom.im>
Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org
	[172.17.192.35])
	by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 31484B2E
	for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
	Tue, 29 Sep 2015 14:17:40 +0000 (UTC)
X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6
Received: from d.mail.sonic.net (d.mail.sonic.net [64.142.111.50])
	by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 943EE2F
	for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
	Tue, 29 Sep 2015 14:17:39 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from [192.168.1.190] (63.135.62.197.nwinternet.com [63.135.62.197]
	(may be forged)) (authenticated bits=0)
	by d.mail.sonic.net (8.15.1/8.15.1) with ESMTPSA id t8TEHZLh028458
	(version=TLSv1 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NOT);
	Tue, 29 Sep 2015 07:17:36 -0700
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 7.3 \(1878.6\))
Content-Type: multipart/signed;
	boundary="Apple-Mail=_74C663F9-EECE-4FD2-AACC-7FA080477E44";
	protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg=pgp-sha512
X-Pgp-Agent: GPGMail 2.5.1
From: "Jonathan Toomim (Toomim Bros)" <j@toom.im>
In-Reply-To: <CABsx9T2pDwNBrC-3w8vHeaLYZ6eoNTNU0gW741Y51YL9hU-kiA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 2015 07:17:35 -0700
Message-Id: <0DCA91F5-E6D3-49CB-B473-D1AE1D3D9885@toom.im>
References: <CABsx9T2pDwNBrC-3w8vHeaLYZ6eoNTNU0gW741Y51YL9hU-kiA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Gavin Andresen <gavinandresen@gmail.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1878.6)
X-Sonic-CAuth: UmFuZG9tSVb9ywHyRoqxA91w6T7Dxuctgv8hoGuYCR0roMFxfH24vKVIHh5LD7M0A3v1kSN/B9IBzEJgbBeEumgqaxXeyn7C
X-Sonic-ID: C;jBvW1LRm5RGJGeK7sH9FTg== M;MpFL1bRm5RGJGeK7sH9FTg==
X-Sonic-Spam-Details: 0.0/5.0 by cerberusd
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,HTML_MESSAGE,
	RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW autolearn=ham version=3.3.1
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on
	smtp1.linux-foundation.org
Cc: Bitcoin Dev <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Is it possible for there to be two chains after a
	hard fork?
X-BeenThere: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Bitcoin Development 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: Tue, 29 Sep 2015 14:17:40 -0000


--Apple-Mail=_74C663F9-EECE-4FD2-AACC-7FA080477E44
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
	boundary="Apple-Mail=_16AD04F3-1D28-4CF5-850B-1C24951A3457"


--Apple-Mail=_16AD04F3-1D28-4CF5-850B-1C24951A3457
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset=us-ascii

At the 95% threshold, I don't think it would happen unless there was a =
very strong motivating factor, like a small group believing that CLTV =
was a conspiracy run by the NSA agent John Titor to contaminate our =
precious bodily fluids with time-traveling traveler's cheques.

At the 75% threshold, I think it could happen with mostly rational =
users, but even then it's not very likely with most forks. With the =
blocksize issue, there are some people who get very religious about =
things like decentralization or fee markets and think that even 1 MB is =
too large; I could see them making financial sacrifices in order to try =
to make a small-block parallel fork a reality, one that is true to their =
vision of what's needed to make Bitcoin true and pure, or whatever.




On Sep 29, 2015, at 7:04 AM, Gavin Andresen <gavinandresen@gmail.com> =
wrote:

> I keep seeing statements like this:
>=20
> On Tue, Sep 29, 2015 at 9:30 AM, Jonathan Toomim (Toomim Bros) via =
bitcoin-dev <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
> As a further benefit to hard forks, anybody who is ideologically =
opposed to the change can continue to use the old version successfully, =
as long as there are enough miners to keep the fork alive.
>=20
> ... but I can't see how that would work.
>=20
> Lets say there is a hard fork, and 5% of miners stubbornly refuse to =
go along with the 95% majority (for this thought experiment, it doesn't =
matter if the old rules or new rules 'win').
>=20
> Lets further imagine that some exchange decides to support that 5% and =
lets people trade coins from that fork (one of the small altcoin =
exchanges would definitely do this if they think they can make a =
profit).
>=20
> Now, lets say I've got a lot of pre-fork bitcoin; they're valid on =
both sides of the fork. I support the 95% chain (because I'm not =
insane), but I'm happy to take people's money if they're stupid enough =
to give it to me.
>=20
> So, I do the following:
>=20
> 1) Create a send-to-self transaction on the 95% fork that is ONLY =
valid on the 95% fork (maybe I CoinJoin with a post-fork coinbase =
transaction, or just move my coins into then out of an exchange's very =
active hot wallet so I get coins with a long transaction history on the =
95% side of the fork).
>=20
> 2) Transfer  those same coins to the 5% exchange and sell them for =
whatever price I can get (I don't care how low, it is free money to me-- =
I will still own the coins on the 95% fork).
>=20
> I have to do step (1) to prevent the exchange from taking the =
transfer-to-exchange transaction and replaying it on the 95% chain.
>=20
> I don't see any way of preventing EVERYBODY who has coins on the 95% =
side of the fork from doing that. The result would be a huge free-fall =
in price as I, and everybody else, rushes to get some free money from =
anybody willing to pay us to remain idealogically pure.
>=20
> Does anybody think something else would happen, and do you think that =
ANYBODY would stick to the 5% fork in the face of enormously long =
transaction confirmation times (~3 hours), a huge transaction backlog as =
lots of the 95%'ers try to sell their coins before the price drops, and =
a massive price drop for coins on the 5% fork.
>=20
> --
> --
> Gavin Andresen
>=20


--Apple-Mail=_16AD04F3-1D28-4CF5-850B-1C24951A3457
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Type: text/html;
	charset=us-ascii

<html><head><meta http-equiv=3D"Content-Type" content=3D"text/html =
charset=3Dus-ascii"></head><body style=3D"word-wrap: break-word; =
-webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space;">At the =
95% threshold, I don't think it would happen unless there was a very =
strong motivating factor, like a small group believing that CLTV was a =
conspiracy run by the NSA agent John Titor to contaminate our precious =
bodily fluids with time-traveling traveler's =
cheques.&nbsp;<div><br></div><div>At the 75% threshold, I think it could =
happen with mostly rational users, but even then it's not very likely =
with most forks. With the blocksize issue, there are some people who get =
very religious about things like decentralization or fee markets and =
think that even 1 MB is too large; I could see them making financial =
sacrifices in order to try to make a small-block parallel fork a =
reality, one that is true to their vision of what's needed to make =
Bitcoin true and pure, or =
whatever.<div><div><br></div><div><div><br></div><div><br><div><br><div><d=
iv>On Sep 29, 2015, at 7:04 AM, Gavin Andresen &lt;<a =
href=3D"mailto:gavinandresen@gmail.com">gavinandresen@gmail.com</a>&gt; =
wrote:</div><br class=3D"Apple-interchange-newline"><blockquote =
type=3D"cite"><div dir=3D"ltr"><div class=3D"gmail_extra"><div =
class=3D"gmail_quote">I keep seeing statements like this:</div><div =
class=3D"gmail_quote"><br></div><div class=3D"gmail_quote">On Tue, Sep =
29, 2015 at 9:30 AM, Jonathan Toomim (Toomim Bros) via bitcoin-dev <span =
dir=3D"ltr">&lt;<a href=3D"mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org" =
target=3D"_blank">bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org</a>&gt;</span> =
wrote:<br><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 =
.8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">As a further benefit =
to hard forks, anybody who is ideologically opposed to the change can =
continue to use the old version successfully, as long as there are =
enough miners to keep the fork alive.</blockquote></div><br>... but I =
can't see how that would work.</div><div =
class=3D"gmail_extra"><br></div><div class=3D"gmail_extra">Lets say =
there is a hard fork, and 5% of miners stubbornly refuse to go along =
with the 95% majority (for this thought experiment, it doesn't matter if =
the old rules or new rules 'win').</div><div =
class=3D"gmail_extra"><br></div><div class=3D"gmail_extra">Lets further =
imagine that some exchange decides to support that 5% and lets people =
trade coins from that fork (one of the small altcoin exchanges would =
definitely do this if they think they can make a profit).</div><div =
class=3D"gmail_extra"><br></div><div class=3D"gmail_extra">Now, lets say =
I've got a lot of pre-fork bitcoin; they're valid on both sides of the =
fork. I support the 95% chain (because I'm not insane), but I'm happy to =
take people's money if they're stupid enough to give it to me.</div><div =
class=3D"gmail_extra"><br></div><div class=3D"gmail_extra">So, I do the =
following:</div><div class=3D"gmail_extra"><br></div><div =
class=3D"gmail_extra">1) Create a send-to-self transaction on the 95% =
fork that is ONLY valid on the 95% fork (maybe I CoinJoin with a =
post-fork coinbase transaction, or just move my coins into then out of =
an exchange's very active hot wallet so I get coins with a long =
transaction history on the 95% side of the fork).</div><div =
class=3D"gmail_extra"><br></div><div class=3D"gmail_extra">2) Transfer =
&nbsp;those same coins to the 5% exchange and sell them for whatever =
price I can get (I don't care how low, it is free money to me-- I will =
still own the coins on the 95% fork).</div><div =
class=3D"gmail_extra"><br></div><div class=3D"gmail_extra">I have to do =
step (1) to prevent the exchange from taking the transfer-to-exchange =
transaction and replaying it on the 95% chain.<br><br>I don't see any =
way of preventing EVERYBODY who has coins on the 95% side of the fork =
from doing that. The result would be a huge free-fall in price as I, and =
everybody else, rushes to get some free money from anybody willing to =
pay us to remain idealogically pure.</div><div =
class=3D"gmail_extra"><br></div><div class=3D"gmail_extra">Does anybody =
think something else would happen, and do you think that ANYBODY would =
stick to the 5% fork in the face of enormously long transaction =
confirmation times (~3 hours), a huge transaction backlog as lots of the =
95%'ers try to sell their coins before the price drops, and a massive =
price drop for coins on the 5% fork.<br clear=3D"all"><div><br></div>-- =
<br><div class=3D"gmail_signature">--<br>Gavin Andresen<br></div><div =
class=3D"gmail_signature"><br></div>
</div></div>
</blockquote></div><br></div></div></div></div></div></body></html>=

--Apple-Mail=_16AD04F3-1D28-4CF5-850B-1C24951A3457--

--Apple-Mail=_74C663F9-EECE-4FD2-AACC-7FA080477E44
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: attachment;
	filename=signature.asc
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature;
	name=signature.asc
Content-Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Comment: GPGTools - https://gpgtools.org

iQEcBAEBCgAGBQJWCp1/AAoJEIEuMk4MG0P138oH+gMU6mEewhD22MGVxdbGjxaO
/dVNMsKPAyMn4ki9b+2SEddekiY5t2TowtmtKEGrkIrE2PSOb0h5ILXNiyZSQ47N
D6fCAIeJ3QJiPb424AQjhzw62IH8bzIMlN9+U9vxr3NTJJdpvfoOLb+1Pj7XplsE
v21Qcg0PWETfFByXuVItWdRcUxCnzqA/SJO/go3fa3Pqn5jDglm6lvBpxRoeY+ql
QceMDqUHGjFwMzjEeMsl3OsMDXWGtIGfTROt7K5UsCi2eNfGLJsSMe5WQZM+qqxH
twaN2HcDTAaGyQQAc8TD1fYO1/IVUSKd8BJS8XkvjEohbz5oPHARM+Qfl+S22Jg=
=39cK
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--Apple-Mail=_74C663F9-EECE-4FD2-AACC-7FA080477E44--