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
|
Return-Path: <jannes.faber@gmail.com>
Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org
[172.17.192.35])
by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id BE06F71F
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Fri, 7 Apr 2017 12:59:36 +0000 (UTC)
X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6
Received: from mail-qt0-f175.google.com (mail-qt0-f175.google.com
[209.85.216.175])
by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2AB30107
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Fri, 7 Apr 2017 12:59:36 +0000 (UTC)
Received: by mail-qt0-f175.google.com with SMTP id x35so59755666qtc.2
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Fri, 07 Apr 2017 05:59:36 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025;
h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to
:cc; bh=eHXA7TeHXoC3grukdh6fczQJ0qm1YgmZY1u/1b6zM9Q=;
b=eZqleaReBdZbIBgqQSFbMJV1OPSc9CsJr0IqElyqiFLnGhmR/j38/XQVCbQJqrBdFZ
VLRkR7hIyh85I9DY4KlRAAoI/ktbFpjcc4mV0/lSur7xm3gicOQE7wOgtplETh0i6Uur
T880TSCslqdCp7OuNZ8hWgJBdWt4RxDi1P2DOlILrxM9d36XtDyA2Cvd4VmMuv/jTnOo
HzHJV4gc1SLXxGZJO3qaC+s3IjzPdCItjumhS+6Uov22dI3Y7Yr+g+7TCpenCaQJqzXD
+dPzQ7Isn6IUZ2JKyeC/vYORTFSZUsu8Y3FYIkJypafET/hC1PderrPGHR20jqfNkJE3
6agw==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
d=1e100.net; s=20161025;
h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date
:message-id:subject:to:cc;
bh=eHXA7TeHXoC3grukdh6fczQJ0qm1YgmZY1u/1b6zM9Q=;
b=VxFITwug2yxiTbyYIZHgyjVeI/XkQvbs9a6+oIm9KP7cPa+fWXMwbGI4H5Ua16FP4p
SPWF61knyqqd163Wye//moMymNR09IgHakK/RfCICRn4lUUOuS0gIWlnABks5BIOPehB
TqlXGL4z1uFG3wDDayqv6V/tDKcX8yIxhZaex6m3FtrYBcK5LHxN8fEQDzfZh00Z9E+6
ELgMuYq2rcP344opHPlCswCS/8hUbC7kpDnrRzQIqVw1MUjriTUC1lCdMftG7OP7NDdf
vJsnqDt5hsLfEnEdT1hENK2gYTLNu7qjNQdUAYBblLXfvLn0Rddw2CXZoSxcwKMI22BM
jtIQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: AFeK/H31W1M2z4tEIVm9tgJUm1UPs9nwUbrC++u+cxr5Nqzg78zT0aYmCL69tYzjMSII/Q==
X-Received: by 10.200.45.59 with SMTP id n56mr40111322qta.137.1491569975194;
Fri, 07 Apr 2017 05:59:35 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-qk0-f182.google.com (mail-qk0-f182.google.com.
[209.85.220.182]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id
r13sm2999662qkh.24.2017.04.07.05.59.34
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
(version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128);
Fri, 07 Apr 2017 05:59:34 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-qk0-f182.google.com with SMTP id p68so36552455qke.1
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Fri, 07 Apr 2017 05:59:34 -0700 (PDT)
X-Received: by 10.55.182.193 with SMTP id g184mr23934787qkf.20.1491569974146;
Fri, 07 Apr 2017 05:59:34 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.237.53.4 with HTTP; Fri, 7 Apr 2017 05:59:13 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <CAE28kUQ4ebyo1WrMJTq658u4CZnLmnw40oZrNwRGHG+oW3UYbA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAAS2fgR84898xD0nyq7ykJnB7qkdoCJYnFg6z5WZEUu0+-=mMA@mail.gmail.com>
<20170406023123.GA1071@savin.petertodd.org>
<CA+KqGkqSxeAUZFVFqM_QkEWcGFHgZXwGuOE==7HpXp1+D_Tj3Q@mail.gmail.com>
<20170406024910.GA1271@savin.petertodd.org>
<CAFVRnyrqiNY_JOqhv2ysm2WsBMYsU3tTAASAtHzMbA68_9Yx8g@mail.gmail.com>
<F5F02B94-E094-4C16-80B6-8B0876E423E4@toom.im>
<CAE28kUQ4ebyo1WrMJTq658u4CZnLmnw40oZrNwRGHG+oW3UYbA@mail.gmail.com>
From: Jannes Faber <jannes.faber@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 7 Apr 2017 14:59:13 +0200
X-Gmail-Original-Message-ID: <CABeL=0hv3=Ak6soja8Am0+OOg6a8MUeHPi=YJnMdMsHNMG6HKQ@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CABeL=0hv3=Ak6soja8Am0+OOg6a8MUeHPi=YJnMdMsHNMG6HKQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Alex Mizrahi <alex.mizrahi@gmail.com>,
Bitcoin Protocol Discussion <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=94eb2c06e5fa779013054c9332cf
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.5 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED,
DKIM_VALID, DKIM_VALID_AU, 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
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] BIP proposal: Inhibiting a covert attack on the
Bitcoin POW function
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, 07 Apr 2017 12:59:36 -0000
--94eb2c06e5fa779013054c9332cf
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
On 6 April 2017 at 19:13, Alex Mizrahi via bitcoin-dev <
bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
>
> Ethically, this situation has some similarities to the DAO fork.
>
>
> Much better analogy:
>
> 1. An ISV make software which makes use of an undocumented OS feature.
> 2. That feature is no longer present in the next OS release.
> 3. ISV suffers losses because its software cannot work under new OS, and
> thus people stop buying it.
>
> I think 99% of programmers would agree that this loss was inflicted by a
> bad decision of ISV, and not by OS vendor changing OS internals. Relying on
> undocumented features is something you do on your own risk.
>
Right. And in this case, code still is law: if the code specifies a version
number field and some miner finds an optimization that only works when the
version number == 1 then it's his own problem once the network upgrades to
version 2. In no way is there anything ethical about blocking the upgrade.
History is not an indicator of the possible values any field can hold in
the future. Limiting your operation to some arbitrary subset is at your own
risk.
Regarding the comparison: I haven't heard anyone even suggest rolling back
the last year of the blockchain to undo the damage already done, any
comparison can end there. If Jonathan wants to persist with this comparison
it would be more like people deciding to stop further funding of the hacked
contract. Yeah, that evil.
--
Jannes Faber
--94eb2c06e5fa779013054c9332cf
Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
<div dir=3D"ltr"><div class=3D"gmail_extra"><br><div class=3D"gmail_quote">=
On 6 April 2017 at 19:13, Alex Mizrahi via bitcoin-dev <span dir=3D"ltr">&l=
t;<a href=3D"mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org" target=3D"_blank=
">bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquot=
e class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc sol=
id;padding-left:1ex"><div dir=3D"ltr"><div class=3D"gmail_extra"><div class=
=3D"gmail_quote"><span class=3D""><br><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" sty=
le=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">Ethica=
lly, this situation has some similarities to the DAO fork.=C2=A0</blockquot=
e><div><br></div></span><div>Much better analogy:</div><div><br></div><div>=
1. An ISV make software which makes use of an undocumented OS feature.</div=
><div>2. That feature is no longer present in the next OS release.</div><di=
v>3. ISV suffers losses because its software cannot work under new OS, and =
thus people stop buying it.</div><div><br></div><div>I think 99% of program=
mers would agree that this loss was inflicted by a bad decision of ISV, and=
not by OS vendor changing OS internals. Relying on undocumented features i=
s something you do on your own risk.</div></div></div></div></blockquote><d=
iv><br></div><div>Right. And in this case, code still is law: if the code s=
pecifies a version number field and some miner finds an optimization that o=
nly works when the version number =3D=3D 1 then it's his own problem on=
ce the network upgrades to version 2. In no way is there anything ethical a=
bout blocking the upgrade.</div><div><br></div><div>History is not an indic=
ator of the possible values any field can hold in the future. Limiting your=
operation to some arbitrary subset is at your own risk.</div><div><br></di=
v><div>Regarding the comparison: I haven't heard anyone even suggest ro=
lling back the last year of the blockchain to undo the damage already done,=
any comparison can end there. If Jonathan wants to persist with this compa=
rison it would be more like people deciding to stop further funding of the =
hacked contract. Yeah, that evil.</div><div><br></div><div>--</div><div>Jan=
nes Faber</div><div><br></div></div></div></div>
--94eb2c06e5fa779013054c9332cf--
|
