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
|
Received: from sog-mx-3.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.193]
helo=mx.sourceforge.net)
by sfs-ml-3.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76)
(envelope-from <gmaxwell@gmail.com>) id 1Wf8ul-00060q-Dn
for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Tue, 29 Apr 2014 14:21:43 +0000
Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-3.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of gmail.com
designates 209.85.217.174 as permitted sender)
client-ip=209.85.217.174; envelope-from=gmaxwell@gmail.com;
helo=mail-lb0-f174.google.com;
Received: from mail-lb0-f174.google.com ([209.85.217.174])
by sog-mx-3.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128)
(Exim 4.76) id 1Wf8uj-0005g2-0G
for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Tue, 29 Apr 2014 14:21:43 +0000
Received: by mail-lb0-f174.google.com with SMTP id c11so208267lbj.5
for <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>;
Tue, 29 Apr 2014 07:21:34 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.112.17.102 with SMTP id n6mr1943107lbd.39.1398781294353;
Tue, 29 Apr 2014 07:21:34 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.112.89.68 with HTTP; Tue, 29 Apr 2014 07:21:34 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <CANEZrP0E=i6gyJwvLZRTeKvqaVrxR69=UzJWsAqaK2=QSdtn_A@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CANEZrP3obO9rXKcX+G7bs2dd3AqEFOsO8pCUF6orrkGeZyr9Ew@mail.gmail.com>
<CAC1+kJPxwTm6qvh2GYT2XMJAPD5O4WHLOGBTRmchRmZ2wS4MSg@mail.gmail.com>
<CANEZrP2PZFVvH3oJyLW80e9W_Fa4bvqQ25E7T-ZFFuG9u-q1hQ@mail.gmail.com>
<5359E509.4080907@gmail.com>
<CANEZrP0bKe-=T5ps0myLZjo60tv2mkm3Bw0o4e-9y7zb1h5eDg@mail.gmail.com>
<535A60FE.10209@gmail.com>
<CANEZrP0y45eSVgbzXYmvYy1WEQNyd=tmC2EpZgGSB28poXSzDw@mail.gmail.com>
<535BA357.6050607@gmail.com>
<CANOOu=_T82zuV79DWZFGK0Nomhp-Y4tqOhw6ZHhCLb2uGtdR5w@mail.gmail.com>
<535CFDB4.1000200@gmail.com>
<20140428214102.GA8347@netbook.cypherspace.org>
<CANEZrP0E=i6gyJwvLZRTeKvqaVrxR69=UzJWsAqaK2=QSdtn_A@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 29 Apr 2014 07:21:34 -0700
Message-ID: <CAAS2fgRbGhMO+KzNQ9NhvpH6QyoaOJH-x9rDjYqEtq0R9=d7Vg@mail.gmail.com>
From: Gregory Maxwell <gmaxwell@gmail.com>
To: Mike Hearn <mike@plan99.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Spam-Score: -1.6 (-)
X-Spam-Report: Spam Filtering performed by mx.sourceforge.net.
See http://spamassassin.org/tag/ for more details.
-1.5 SPF_CHECK_PASS SPF reports sender host as permitted sender for
sender-domain
0.0 FREEMAIL_FROM Sender email is commonly abused enduser mail provider
(gmaxwell[at]gmail.com)
-0.0 SPF_PASS SPF: sender matches SPF record
-0.1 DKIM_VALID_AU Message has a valid DKIM or DK signature from
author's domain
0.1 DKIM_SIGNED Message has a DKIM or DK signature,
not necessarily valid
-0.1 DKIM_VALID Message has at least one valid DKIM or DK signature
X-Headers-End: 1Wf8uj-0005g2-0G
Cc: Bitcoin Dev <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>
Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] Coinbase reallocation to discourage
Finney attacks
X-BeenThere: bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: <bitcoin-development.lists.sourceforge.net>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development>,
<mailto:bitcoin-development-request@lists.sourceforge.net?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://sourceforge.net/mailarchive/forum.php?forum_name=bitcoin-development>
List-Post: <mailto:bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>
List-Help: <mailto:bitcoin-development-request@lists.sourceforge.net?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development>,
<mailto:bitcoin-development-request@lists.sourceforge.net?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 29 Apr 2014 14:21:43 -0000
On Tue, Apr 29, 2014 at 7:13 AM, Mike Hearn <mike@plan99.net> wrote:
> It only works if the majority of hashpower is controlled by attackers, in
> which case Bitcoin is already doomed. So it doesn't matter at that point.
These parties wouldn't generally consider themselves attackers=E2=80=94 nor
would many users (presumably everyone who mines on ghash.io, for
example)=E2=80=94 rather they'd they may consider someone using hashpower
voting to reassign coins to be an attacker, and reassigning their
coins instead to be a morally justified and pragmatic response.
I think we're capable here of discussing the specifics without needing
to use generalizations which invite definitional arguments... I don't
think that bombastic language like doomed helps the dialog.
|
