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
|
Received: from sog-mx-1.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.191]
helo=mx.sourceforge.net)
by sfs-ml-3.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76)
(envelope-from <pete@petertodd.org>) id 1UDfab-0006Mh-CY
for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Thu, 07 Mar 2013 18:30:49 +0000
Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-1.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of petertodd.org
designates 62.13.148.161 as permitted sender)
client-ip=62.13.148.161; envelope-from=pete@petertodd.org;
helo=outmail148161.authsmtp.com;
Received: from outmail148161.authsmtp.com ([62.13.148.161])
by sog-mx-1.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76)
id 1UDfaZ-0005sv-NZ for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Thu, 07 Mar 2013 18:30:49 +0000
Received: from mail-c235.authsmtp.com (mail-c235.authsmtp.com [62.13.128.235])
by punt6.authsmtp.com (8.14.2/8.14.2/Kp) with ESMTP id
r27IUek4036979; Thu, 7 Mar 2013 18:30:40 GMT
Received: from savin (76-10-178-109.dsl.teksavvy.com [76.10.178.109])
(authenticated bits=128)
by mail.authsmtp.com (8.14.2/8.14.2/) with ESMTP id r27IUaAJ001268
(version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO);
Thu, 7 Mar 2013 18:30:38 GMT
Date: Thu, 7 Mar 2013 13:30:35 -0500
From: Peter Todd <pete@petertodd.org>
To: Mike Hearn <mike@plan99.net>
Message-ID: <20130307183035.GA9083@savin>
References: <20130307110018.GA7491@savin>
<CANEZrP0MHA_Mv37DSv=CLBWLHo_-ajRgNRd1-4EGJ2GZvTxiJQ@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1;
protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="nFreZHaLTZJo0R7j"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <CANEZrP0MHA_Mv37DSv=CLBWLHo_-ajRgNRd1-4EGJ2GZvTxiJQ@mail.gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15)
X-Server-Quench: 1c94daf3-8755-11e2-b5c5-002590a15da7
X-AuthReport-Spam: If SPAM / abuse - report it at:
http://www.authsmtp.com/abuse
X-AuthRoute: OCd2Yg0TA1ZNQRgX IjsJECJaVQIpKltL GxAVKBZePFsRUQkR
aAdMdgUUFVQGAgsB AmUbWlxeU117Wmo7 bAxPbAVDY01GQQRq
WVdMSlVNFUsqAxt4 Y09vKBlydgdAcDB3 ZUJlEHEIVUAuJBB+
X0ZTEGgbZGY1an1N VRNdagNUcgZDfk5E bwQuUz1vNG8XDQg5
AwQ0PjZ0MThBJSBS WgQAK04nCWICBDEx AhoGGj4sBgUMQSl7
JBEgMVkGB0YQKi0A
X-Authentic-SMTP: 61633532353630.1023:706
X-AuthFastPath: 0 (Was 255)
X-AuthSMTP-Origin: 76.10.178.109/587
X-AuthVirus-Status: No virus detected - but ensure you scan with your own
anti-virus system.
X-Spam-Score: -1.5 (-)
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 SPF_PASS SPF: sender matches SPF record
X-Headers-End: 1UDfaZ-0005sv-NZ
Cc: Bitcoin Dev <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>
Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] Large-blocks and censorship
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: Thu, 07 Mar 2013 18:30:49 -0000
--nFreZHaLTZJo0R7j
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
On Thu, Mar 07, 2013 at 06:42:32PM +0100, Mike Hearn wrote:
> To summarize your post - it's another go at arguing for strongly
> limited block sizes, this time on the grounds that large blocks make
> it easier for $AUTHORITY to censor transactions? Is that right?
Yes.
Now, can we solve this problem robustly with clever technology, as is
done with UTXO fraud proofs? I can't see a way - can you?
Gavin asked me to do a projection for what block sizes could be based on
technology improving, and I think that analysis should consider
carefully to what degree the current system's quite strong censorship
resistance will be impacted.
It's interesting to be talking about censorship of transactions, right
as the support for implementing technical means to block SatoshiDice
transactions is highest. If anything, I think Gregory Maxwell's findings
he has posted on IRC showing roughly three quarters of transactions in
blocks are SatoshiDice related shows how the current large number of
validating nodes makes any effort at even discouraging unwanted traffic
quite difficult. In other words, it's a strong sign the censorship
resistance of Bitcoin works as intended.
--=20
'peter'[:-1]@petertodd.org
--nFreZHaLTZJo0R7j
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc"
Content-Description: Digital signature
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux)
iEYEARECAAYFAlE43MsACgkQpEFN739thowEYwCeO7awugctLTbUPX1B2JimgY+e
Yq0AnRk2KtVuzZboE2soeUilZ6/5d/c5
=hpLz
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--nFreZHaLTZJo0R7j--
|
