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
|
Return-Path: <jtimon@jtimon.cc>
Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org
[172.17.192.35])
by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B61C6899
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Sat, 8 Apr 2017 16:27:50 +0000 (UTC)
X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6
Received: from mail-ua0-f182.google.com (mail-ua0-f182.google.com
[209.85.217.182])
by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 31594FF
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Sat, 8 Apr 2017 16:27:50 +0000 (UTC)
Received: by mail-ua0-f182.google.com with SMTP id u103so9296900uau.1
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Sat, 08 Apr 2017 09:27:50 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
d=jtimon-cc.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623;
h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to
:cc; bh=s4MTo4N42oiWJAuInYwAE7Irj3Hcx2j9iqscIom20Ys=;
b=MQEyBEY5FkMFloKRIF5cj9GeKao7O2jWwSDWo/t3Cg+au/Dimp1mjzL2ZS5rSQqk+b
GNqlUQe+PPWAOAnm+dn/OwxpjltR6haMN5nfFzUDr6pZ7d1UvHukEC72tfNWtL/FTkxv
8HqBLVv7bBmDrNDsPnPTGm44l42PeLL5L9TZwGFGMAiAEyIp8uD034Fng4d586SOnkJD
1T3nfGjscjUkOZ0IzUjR/GVjyUYtWOokbj2YPCaJY4UwJYhip8rRZDZzLrqLXao6p9kX
1+fGMxWqO32eCVFcL49YhFfvjWNuy56cSFznSal29VdkL2LRcpJqpRNSQQlDjuFzbenF
iQpw==
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=s4MTo4N42oiWJAuInYwAE7Irj3Hcx2j9iqscIom20Ys=;
b=UIy14/9aga8DMEKt8h05Y+PxaHaUemmaI0HgFYXhmHSveFL4gcwsfL8JsJeGt/qP7X
WELWHacLvHxiP0072kPxOBdhobpRvkY7CBw7r62GE+9I1cjLzEjOblkCKXGOOeokm+57
QqUwUKhcw/x/myIvmzIzyWyBx1k82Y3o+vEltnZhHbgxSQyQ7CqxdPJjxm/HREKjQ5BR
IiLbDyLpwS5SQw1InsA9Kvuy1/waLKJe+wfJXOxV7RMn2ckYC3rqIusw2Z9KXz++xemz
bKFw8Hl/2BGe4mmYv7mZXjxtJYdSzEGQKrYz8K4QCAsAskb6o7a39lRpByQ+lOv2F/+X
Ubcg==
X-Gm-Message-State: AFeK/H0z5ikBVCeF69JgeU8/+DfdMGm11ub7wN8hw+8byMH2G/Lz+y9FCfi/KYc21glBwwZlgZcVYXf4tVwIXw==
X-Received: by 10.159.48.81 with SMTP id i17mr23130960uab.65.1491668869241;
Sat, 08 Apr 2017 09:27:49 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.31.151.136 with HTTP; Sat, 8 Apr 2017 09:27:48 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.31.151.136 with HTTP; Sat, 8 Apr 2017 09:27:48 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <CAJR7vkoq8Y_-fbdxN=--gF5wrGByr5oODc4FkTaCEvDSuP0whQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAJR7vkpRhNsQsem-nFkeubX04xx1y7aHwCENfg0d1266oOsXMw@mail.gmail.com>
<Cwhn7YzwaDUZtOygDAgrU1UXjRPG-EiH3Fyz2c95gqOpNnNbiYL1NvhS28yK5wLJCnIqDaBrM6c574dY-O6_-bRjLIFmDe2NCxIuyV1w2dw=@protonmail.com>
<CAJR7vkoq8Y_-fbdxN=--gF5wrGByr5oODc4FkTaCEvDSuP0whQ@mail.gmail.com>
From: =?UTF-8?B?Sm9yZ2UgVGltw7Nu?= <jtimon@jtimon.cc>
Date: Sat, 8 Apr 2017 18:27:48 +0200
Message-ID: <CABm2gDo+XreV1va2rrHrBCf9x-pcGWqjaQcn7ptRJ4jRE=N79g@mail.gmail.com>
To: Jimmy Song <jaejoon@gmail.com>,
Bitcoin Dev <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=94eb2c1b113212f349054caa3948
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED,
DKIM_VALID, HTML_MESSAGE, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE autolearn=ham version=3.3.1
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on
smtp1.linux-foundation.org
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] A Small Modification to Segwit
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: Sat, 08 Apr 2017 16:27:50 -0000
--94eb2c1b113212f349054caa3948
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
On 8 Apr 2017 5:06 am, "Jimmy Song via bitcoin-dev" <
bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
Praxeology Guy,
Why would the actual end users of Bitcoin (the long term and short term
> owners of bitcoins) who run fully verifying nodes want to change Bitcoin
> policy in order to make their money more vulnerable to 51% attack?
>
Certainly, if only one company made use of the extra nonce space, they
would have an advantage. But think of it this way, if some newer ASIC
optimization comes up, would you rather have a non-ASICBoosted hash rate to
defend with or an ASICBoosted hash rate? Certainly, the latter, being
higher will secure the Bitcoin network better against newer optimizations.
Why?
--94eb2c1b113212f349054caa3948
Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
<div dir=3D"auto"><br><div class=3D"gmail_extra" dir=3D"auto"><br><div clas=
s=3D"gmail_quote">On 8 Apr 2017 5:06 am, "Jimmy Song via bitcoin-dev&q=
uot; <<a href=3D"mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org">bitcoin-d=
ev@lists.linuxfoundation.org</a>> wrote:<br type=3D"attribution"><blockq=
uote class=3D"quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;=
padding-left:1ex"><div dir=3D"ltr"><div class=3D"gmail_extra">Praxeology Gu=
y,</div><div class=3D"gmail_extra"><br><div class=3D"gmail_quote"><div clas=
s=3D"quoted-text"><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .=
8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div>Why would the actual =
end users of Bitcoin (the long term and short term owners of bitcoins) who =
run fully verifying nodes want to change Bitcoin policy in order to make th=
eir money more vulnerable to 51% attack?</div></blockquote><div><br></div><=
/div><div>Certainly, if only one company made use of the extra nonce space,=
they would have an advantage. But think of it this way, if some newer ASIC=
optimization comes up, would you rather have a non-ASICBoosted hash rate t=
o defend with or an ASICBoosted hash rate? Certainly, the latter, being hig=
her will secure the Bitcoin network better against newer optimizations.</di=
v></div></div></div></blockquote></div></div><div dir=3D"auto"><br></div><d=
iv dir=3D"auto">Why?</div><div class=3D"gmail_extra" dir=3D"auto"></div></d=
iv>
--94eb2c1b113212f349054caa3948--
|
