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
165
166
167
|
Return-Path: <eric@voskuil.org>
Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org
[172.17.192.35])
by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E47B0826
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Tue, 7 Mar 2017 17:37:17 +0000 (UTC)
X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6
Received: from mail-pf0-f172.google.com (mail-pf0-f172.google.com
[209.85.192.172])
by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2327B181
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Tue, 7 Mar 2017 17:37:17 +0000 (UTC)
Received: by mail-pf0-f172.google.com with SMTP id j5so3162760pfb.2
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Tue, 07 Mar 2017 09:37:16 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
d=voskuil-org.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623;
h=subject:to:references:from:message-id:date:user-agent:mime-version
:in-reply-to; bh=dXzuR57aCuLVNSOeU3bY+OHipcEhzg2S5nW0udVgPVg=;
b=cRlbfzYMmw9Fj5eh81YuReb97gum8vaDWFU6fJPMsdrhMFScuRZSFgrMqsu+6hFwXc
L+0PBiIdMfw+VyjmcwnMvwBewBnLuNeFMvPzllK8v5xayvEaacNE5IeFbXGK65/VJ/+T
Kt2QGu2pJikVaxm+68XjLJydy+gRWrTn95gMB2gYeZWUG0MorbhMg6L891q0zZgPva2J
11pqxpuncd0UMC7OgA7dBgE1Mc24wrE49xIJmd7WNhj0rNjMF40tTYZS33+vtYk/R2jt
o5B4cLdHwj0M7kZSR+AbmxXc53p5g66wCzgXi6Ti+4xQQonog/W9u05YATenpND3mokA
qQHg==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
d=1e100.net; s=20161025;
h=x-gm-message-state:subject:to:references:from:message-id:date
:user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to;
bh=dXzuR57aCuLVNSOeU3bY+OHipcEhzg2S5nW0udVgPVg=;
b=RjrQ8jogGTb3Cn/+Nhv/uajyX+hYKZCFB+Jj/6Wfu2lA1vT/L9yhffzdkchnoYf+i9
47pMj8elaEZoCyusKquHmPknG66uf6P5x9KUN9Ql7xcJxsY8Z6lAlZGyVd9CkhJwnKDe
XOwSpDujlB0Z7f8k4aM9ONbdkoXjNuL22Wt4tP2Ft4jdduNKMkwi8xE8vBgH+IYP7cNI
UJBmlOs8mytQIjvcDRVvGZ+8syb0wX7GYxXvEtnLDvGKRL+AlLW/LR8ODQKpN9pH7Niz
EbOCaPP/kzAoGSCKX9maIEaD5FdMDVJDfr1zkW3GlMjMnaohnTT13PxIyjTKjoG7lqSg
aUuQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: AMke39nVPwoStgB11kML+XWKFQs8ihx0Fmw48xPyZcCDpN6Wl7+NeCcrgew01cEbS09O9Q==
X-Received: by 10.84.208.102 with SMTP id f35mr2085352plh.19.1488908236495;
Tue, 07 Mar 2017 09:37:16 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ?IPv6:2601:600:9000:d69e:c467:7fa5:342:3b51?
([2601:600:9000:d69e:c467:7fa5:342:3b51])
by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id
g85sm1034589pfd.89.2017.03.07.09.37.15
(version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128);
Tue, 07 Mar 2017 09:37:15 -0800 (PST)
To: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org,
Libbitcoin Development <libbitcoin@lists.dyne.org>
References: <0ba5bf9c-5578-98ce-07ae-036d0d71046b@riseup.net>
<CAFVRnyomgeXu2pRO=+B7bwB-bZdEL2DcpJNPMz=tAhht6eZXAQ@mail.gmail.com>
<CANN4kmcLTcqHL53tEFk=g9o0_PsGzwArm9wgd0__ZXZpvhrs1g@mail.gmail.com>
<CAFVRnyr4QoU5Rn2ryQ-jG8sZ18J7NKcpd3Cg+uN1sfiA=FiB+Q@mail.gmail.com>
<CA+su7OV0Cpe=4AKdNhJXOCbYVriEN1vHSoA_0r31GXCAP1=NCA@mail.gmail.com>
<964E4801-234F-4E30-A040-2C63274D27F2@posteo.net>
<CA+su7OXOfG2AsLqh-i4YZHc42tFPm+4OBqOV4jCrpADtx4U71g@mail.gmail.com>
From: Eric Voskuil <eric@voskuil.org>
X-Enigmail-Draft-Status: N0110
Message-ID: <48f6c6a5-ba7e-cf75-e272-e713321f04b8@voskuil.org>
Date: Tue, 7 Mar 2017 09:37:15 -0800
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101
Thunderbird/45.5.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CA+su7OXOfG2AsLqh-i4YZHc42tFPm+4OBqOV4jCrpADtx4U71g@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1;
protocol="application/pgp-signature";
boundary="0es2irxUKE31CaAQ2d8FMpNfHRQ7TxuHL"
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.4 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED,
DKIM_VALID, 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
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Tue, 07 Mar 2017 17:43:34 +0000
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Moving towards user activated soft fork activation
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: Tue, 07 Mar 2017 17:37:18 -0000
This is an OpenPGP/MIME signed message (RFC 4880 and 3156)
--0es2irxUKE31CaAQ2d8FMpNfHRQ7TxuHL
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
On 03/06/2017 05:07 PM, Edmund Edgar via bitcoin-dev wrote:
> On 7 March 2017 at 08:23, Gareth Williams <gjw@posteo.net> wrote:
>> What you're describing is a hashpower activated soft fork to censor
transactions, in response to a user activated soft fork that the
majority of hashpower disagrees with.
This definition of censorship would apply to all validation.
A miner is free to select whatever transactions he wants, for whatever
reasons he wants. Bitcoin's defense against censorship (and disruption)
is in the broad distribution of over 50% (anecdotally) of the hash power
among a large number of people.
> Well, they'd be censoring transactions to prevent the thing from
> activating in the first place. (As opposed to censoring a subset of
> those transactions to enforce the new rule, which is the behaviour
> that the people promoting the change want.)
Exactly, a soft fork expects that people start rejecting a previously
valid style of transaction, or that they ignore it. It's perfectly
reasonable to conclude that some miners may continue to accept the
soft-fork-invalidated transactions and instead reject the new style of
transactions as invalid. Reliance on their acceptance of the soft fork
is based on the weak assumption that they won't change their software or
that they live in fear of a retaliatory POW change.
>> Bitcoin only works if the majority of hashpower is not hostile to the
users.
Honesty in this context refers to double spending. Selecting a different
rule set effectively moves one to another coin, which is not dishonest
(hostile to anyone). Miners have zero technical or ethical obligation
to follow any particular set of rules. Bitcoin has one golden rule, run
whatever code you want. Security is based on decentralization, not
well-behaved people (or well-behaved software).
> This is true. But what we're talking about here is hostility to *a
> particular proposal to change the network rules* which is (in this
> hypothetical case) supported by the economic majority of users. This
> doesn't, in itself, break Bitcoin, although the economic majority are
> of course always free to hard-fork to something new if they're
> unhappy.
Again spot on. Users of the money purchase security from miners. Miners
are under no obligation to provide that service nor are users under any
obligation to purchase it.
One thing to consider is how different the landscape would look if every
person on the planet was a miner, and the economy was similarly
distributed. Would it be easier to get 51% hash power on board with a
soft fork, or some much higher percentage on board with a hard fork? It
seems likely that any proposed material change would fail. Regardless of
how one feels about that, it is the nature of a sound money that it
doesn't change.
e
--0es2irxUKE31CaAQ2d8FMpNfHRQ7TxuHL
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc"
Content-Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="signature.asc"
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.22 (GNU/Linux)
iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJYvu/MAAoJEDzYwH8LXOFOMsAH/1ZEID79z3okKQhYeFRpAL4v
8g6KCnuye2FlwtXdQ3+i2aS5HNcYS+qaviBGo50DIFfou9uC//z0ffbzxdR2SonF
x/YL1xA0ZLsfONWdrkb/zZO8+zflUCh5eG/9P25W9t2YXr0g4ya64HWOHLOkw1/D
J0Pg9ph/Rm2allNVd0MT3ZMs9bK4qtbuRjergsNWYsg+Y/9t0ISdeoN0uN+Vhx0Z
gbAsQ8dN5le3NDVGYjVZ7jIEcYANQE/0nzMZtI2MUC8zvd36Tjno3jlLrxcx8xTH
2FkyvcIxn1G4uWLmIhzuQgdeV+sPyfKGt5EZb1w+iz9jXdiLf92FcAFID/gk7lM=
=00vX
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--0es2irxUKE31CaAQ2d8FMpNfHRQ7TxuHL--
|
