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
|
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 196CB6C
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Thu, 6 Apr 2017 06:24:09 +0000 (UTC)
X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6
Received: from c.mail.sonic.net (c.mail.sonic.net [64.142.111.80])
by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A00FB101
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Thu, 6 Apr 2017 06:24:08 +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 c.mail.sonic.net (8.15.1/8.15.1) with ESMTPSA id v366O5ui018984
(version=TLSv1 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NOT)
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Wed, 5 Apr 2017 23:24:06 -0700
Content-Type: multipart/signed;
boundary="Apple-Mail=_86F49DC1-34C4-49E2-83B0-0BFAC4802FA9";
protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg=pgp-sha512
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 9.2 \(3112\))
X-Pgp-Agent: GPGMail
From: Jonathan Toomim <j@toom.im>
In-Reply-To: <CAFVRnyrqiNY_JOqhv2ysm2WsBMYsU3tTAASAtHzMbA68_9Yx8g@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 5 Apr 2017 23:24:04 -0700
Message-Id: <F5F02B94-E094-4C16-80B6-8B0876E423E4@toom.im>
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>
To: Bitcoin Protocol Discussion <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3112)
X-Sonic-CAuth: UmFuZG9tSVY2gXk4XRVhqdFPUGreXxmxDNxgF7on+IyRXToOBnPBn6urR/IggEeoVSI6a1nqH43aFxy61j0SVAdiEAgzWN6e
X-Sonic-ID: C;4DehopEa5xGfL9RbNyX4rQ== M;YqkWo5Ea5xGfL9RbNyX4rQ==
X-Sonic-Spam-Details: 0.0/5.0 by cerberusd
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.1 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW,
RCVD_IN_SORBS_SPAM autolearn=ham version=3.3.1
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on
smtp1.linux-foundation.org
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Thu, 06 Apr 2017 11:42:53 +0000
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: Thu, 06 Apr 2017 06:24:09 -0000
--Apple-Mail=_86F49DC1-34C4-49E2-83B0-0BFAC4802FA9
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset=us-ascii
Ethically, this situation has some similarities to the DAO fork. We have =
an entity who closely examined the code, found an unintended =
characteristic of that code, and made use of that characteristic in =
order to gain tens of millions of dollars. Now that developers are aware =
of it, they want to modify the code in order to negate as much of the =
gains as possible.
There are differences, too, of course: the DAO attacker was explicitly =
malicious and stole Ether from others, whereas Bitmain is just =
optimizing their hardware better than anyone else and better than some =
of us think they should be allowed to.
In both cases, developers are proposing that the developers and a =
majority of users collude to reduce the wealth of a single entity by =
altering the blockchain rules.
In the case of the DAO fork, users were stealing back stolen funds, but =
that justification doesn't apply in this case. On the other hand, in =
this case we're talking about causing someone a loss by reducing the =
value of hardware investments rather than forcibly taking back their =
coins, which is less direct and maybe more justifiable.
While I don't like patented mining algorithms, I also don't like the =
idea of playing Calvin Ball on the blockchain. Rule changes should not =
be employed as a means of disempowering and empoverishing particular =
entities without very good reason. Whether patenting a mining =
optimization qualifies as good reason is questionable.
--Apple-Mail=_86F49DC1-34C4-49E2-83B0-0BFAC4802FA9
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
iQEcBAEBCgAGBQJY5d8FAAoJEIEuMk4MG0P1qagH/0BDweWPcotBCsymosKd9W0q
gLRiHmRhlO8HWxBV01QaUwGID3nHuFxyfLLxMNCPk34EYYoVYNS7GjDNkPk1diHt
SHCp/zqjCJGosz68EI22vgESpOQQVX9NmNVOCl7cWTC4dc/0Vq5ZPtb2B4FDFgqq
3KCnIgmhUfyBPQhXk9kE7l/xJb/aD+aW7YDutUT3mhsrNWXTsFFb8kiwuqi/wAEA
OpiaYVEhv8xTZa55dSP6zgmupY8v8mStgDAODoV2OgwUlB0Gn+j4VIgsAV/BtWS8
yi8/YugY323QDL+GqPDpxOiP+oTZXh6HfYtyy5XOac57fIEFosF4jjXudpMez+A=
=GsrF
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--Apple-Mail=_86F49DC1-34C4-49E2-83B0-0BFAC4802FA9--
|
