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
|
Received: from sog-mx-4.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.194]
helo=mx.sourceforge.net)
by sfs-ml-2.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76)
(envelope-from <mh.in.england@gmail.com>) id 1XboKy-0002Th-IH
for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Wed, 08 Oct 2014 10:19:16 +0000
Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-4.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of gmail.com
designates 209.85.218.50 as permitted sender)
client-ip=209.85.218.50; envelope-from=mh.in.england@gmail.com;
helo=mail-oi0-f50.google.com;
Received: from mail-oi0-f50.google.com ([209.85.218.50])
by sog-mx-4.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128)
(Exim 4.76) id 1XboKx-0000f4-Ix
for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Wed, 08 Oct 2014 10:19:16 +0000
Received: by mail-oi0-f50.google.com with SMTP id i138so7054126oig.9
for <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>;
Wed, 08 Oct 2014 03:19:10 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.60.94.167 with SMTP id dd7mr10739552oeb.4.1412763550104;
Wed, 08 Oct 2014 03:19:10 -0700 (PDT)
Sender: mh.in.england@gmail.com
Received: by 10.76.86.105 with HTTP; Wed, 8 Oct 2014 03:19:10 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <54344751.708@certimix.com>
References: <543438E4.8080501@certimix.com> <54343948.1030400@certimix.com>
<CAAS2fgRdB_4XS9Q+MFLsNtXvSiYS9Ymh9SAPzcJ5aae+89vxFA@mail.gmail.com>
<54344751.708@certimix.com>
Date: Wed, 8 Oct 2014 12:19:10 +0200
X-Google-Sender-Auth: 94Rny5J9EB6yzUOXEtMq-4BOcfo
Message-ID: <CANEZrP0soZPGeP5HBoJVSdcKOTWJEB8LDkTDNdLDHcjysjpmcg@mail.gmail.com>
From: Mike Hearn <mike@plan99.net>
To: Sergio Lerner <sergiolerner@certimix.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=089e01183cba8e420a0504e6a538
X-Spam-Score: -0.5 (/)
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 FREEMAIL_FROM Sender email is commonly abused enduser mail provider
(mh.in.england[at]gmail.com)
-0.0 SPF_PASS SPF: sender matches SPF record
1.0 HTML_MESSAGE BODY: HTML included in message
0.1 DKIM_SIGNED Message has a DKIM or DK signature,
not necessarily valid
-0.1 DKIM_VALID Message has at least one valid DKIM or DK signature
X-Headers-End: 1XboKx-0000f4-Ix
Cc: bitcoin-development <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>
Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] The Bitcoin Freeze on Transaction Attack
(FRONT)
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: Wed, 08 Oct 2014 10:19:16 -0000
--089e01183cba8e420a0504e6a538
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
>
> Yes, you're right. I didn't consider that case. But the problem is that
> this is not automatic. Currently there is a clear division between
> miners how will not take the kickback (irrrational) and miners who will
> (rational).
This seems to come up a lot. Your definition of rational is a short term
rationality only. I can pass up a short term profit in return for more
stable longer term profits and be completely rational, by a reasonable
definition of the word.
I think it's clear by now that if most or even some miners decide to
prioritise short term profit over the long term health of the system (i.e.
longer term profit), Bitcoin basically doesn't work right. This attack is
only one of several such things that can happen. This certainly can be a
problem when difficulty is skyrocketing because a mining investment is I
guess quite short term anyway, but presumably at some point the mining arms
race will end and miners will become more settled in.
--089e01183cba8e420a0504e6a538
Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
<div dir=3D"ltr"><div class=3D"gmail_extra"><div class=3D"gmail_quote"><blo=
ckquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #c=
cc solid;padding-left:1ex">Yes, you're right. I didn't consider tha=
t case. But the problem is that<br>
this is not automatic. Currently there is a clear division between<br>
miners how will not take the kickback (irrrational) and miners who will<br>
(rational).</blockquote><div><br></div><div>This seems to come up a lot. Yo=
ur definition of rational is a short term rationality only. I can pass up a=
short term profit in return for more stable longer term profits and be com=
pletely rational, by a reasonable definition of the word.</div><div><br></d=
iv><div>I think it's clear by now that if most or even some miners deci=
de to prioritise short term profit over the long term health of the system =
(i.e. longer term profit), Bitcoin basically doesn't work right. This a=
ttack is only one of several such things that can happen. This certainly ca=
n be a problem when difficulty is skyrocketing because a mining investment =
is I guess quite short term anyway, but presumably at some point the mining=
arms race will end and miners will become more settled in.</div></div></di=
v></div>
--089e01183cba8e420a0504e6a538--
|
