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
|
Received: from sog-mx-3.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.193]
helo=mx.sourceforge.net)
by sfs-ml-2.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76)
(envelope-from <gavinandresen@gmail.com>) id 1YsYmi-00082R-1C
for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Wed, 13 May 2015 15:41:24 +0000
Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-3.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of gmail.com
designates 209.85.215.54 as permitted sender)
client-ip=209.85.215.54; envelope-from=gavinandresen@gmail.com;
helo=mail-la0-f54.google.com;
Received: from mail-la0-f54.google.com ([209.85.215.54])
by sog-mx-3.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128)
(Exim 4.76) id 1YsYmh-0007Ju-4F
for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Wed, 13 May 2015 15:41:24 +0000
Received: by layy10 with SMTP id y10so32454876lay.0
for <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>;
Wed, 13 May 2015 08:41:16 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.112.97.202 with SMTP id ec10mr6434595lbb.4.1431531676734;
Wed, 13 May 2015 08:41:16 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.25.90.75 with HTTP; Wed, 13 May 2015 08:41:16 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <CALqxMTGebNMARgps9mqxDSOw0cX9aeZZim82g8a4vE6sCPHq-g@mail.gmail.com>
References: <5550D8BE.6070207@electrum.org>
<ce3d34c92efd1cf57326e4679550944e@national.shitposting.agency>
<CABsx9T1VgxEJWxrYTs+2hXGnGrSLGJ6mVcAexjXLvK7Vu+e3EA@mail.gmail.com>
<5551F376.4050008@electrum.org>
<CABsx9T1h7p3hDr7ty43uxsYs-oNRpndzg=dowST2tXtogxRm2g@mail.gmail.com>
<555210AF.3090705@electrum.org>
<CABsx9T3AxM3et7hgXx3+Rn3BvhQkF-Cn797sHcyztkMpD1UQmA@mail.gmail.com>
<CAPS+U98sh6BmuGHWOffrmTpaM3CNfhBUWdmgACb9++jU6M1fmQ@mail.gmail.com>
<CALqxMTGebNMARgps9mqxDSOw0cX9aeZZim82g8a4vE6sCPHq-g@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 13 May 2015 11:41:16 -0400
Message-ID: <CABsx9T0K3xQUSY26VYoJzyAGkqCfRL_xnkQUrv7M-HpOvpio5w@mail.gmail.com>
From: Gavin Andresen <gavinandresen@gmail.com>
To: Adam Back <adam@cypherspace.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a1133b1c4139beb0515f871d1
X-Spam-Score: -0.6 (/)
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
(gavinandresen[at]gmail.com)
-0.0 SPF_PASS SPF: sender matches SPF record
1.0 HTML_MESSAGE BODY: HTML included in message
-0.1 DKIM_VALID_AU Message has a valid DKIM or DK signature from
author's domain
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: 1YsYmh-0007Ju-4F
Cc: Bitcoin Dev <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>
Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] Long-term mining incentives
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, 13 May 2015 15:41:24 -0000
--001a1133b1c4139beb0515f871d1
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
On Tue, May 12, 2015 at 7:48 PM, Adam Back <adam@cypherspace.org> wrote:
> I think its fair to say no one knows how to make a consensus that
> works in a decentralised fashion that doesnt weaken the bitcoin
> security model without proof-of-work for now.
>
Yes.
> I am presuming Gavin is just saying in the context of not pre-judging
> the future that maybe in the far future another innovation might be
> found (or alternatively maybe its not mathematically possible).
>
Yes... or an alternative might be found that weakens the Bitcoin security
model by a small enough amount that it either doesn't matter or the
weakening is vastly overwhelmed by some other benefit.
I'm influenced by the way the Internet works; packets addressed to
74.125.226.67 reliably get to Google through a very decentralized system
that I'll freely admit I don't understand. Yes, a determined attacker can
re-route packets, but layers of security on top means re-routing packets
isn't enough to pull off profitable attacks.
I think Bitcoin's proof-of-work might evolve in a similar way. Yes, you
might be able to 51% attack the POW, but layers of security on top of POW
will mean that won't be enough to pull off profitable attacks.
--
--
Gavin Andresen
--001a1133b1c4139beb0515f871d1
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">On T=
ue, May 12, 2015 at 7:48 PM, Adam Back <span dir=3D"ltr"><<a href=3D"mai=
lto:adam@cypherspace.org" target=3D"_blank">adam@cypherspace.org</a>></s=
pan> wrote:<br><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0px 0px 0p=
x 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-lef=
t-style:solid;padding-left:1ex">I think its fair to say no one knows how to=
make a consensus that<br>
works in a decentralised fashion that doesnt weaken the bitcoin<br>
security model without proof-of-work for now.<br></blockquote><div><br></di=
v><div>Yes.</div><div>=C2=A0</div><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=
=3D"margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(20=
4,204,204);border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex">I am presuming Gavin i=
s just saying in the context of not pre-judging<br>
the future that maybe in the far future another innovation might be<br>
found (or alternatively maybe its not mathematically possible).<br></blockq=
uote><div><br></div><div>Yes... or an alternative might be found that weake=
ns the Bitcoin security model by a small enough amount that it either doesn=
't matter or the weakening is vastly overwhelmed by some other benefit.=
</div><div><br></div><div>I'm influenced by the way the Internet works;=
packets addressed to 74.125.226.67 reliably get to Google through a very d=
ecentralized system that I'll freely admit I don't understand. Yes,=
a determined attacker can re-route packets, but layers of security on top =
means re-routing packets isn't enough to pull off profitable attacks.</=
div><div><br></div><div>I think Bitcoin's proof-of-work might evolve in=
a similar way. Yes, you might be able to 51% attack the POW, but layers of=
security on top of POW will mean that won't be enough to pull off prof=
itable attacks.</div></div><div><br></div><div><br></div>-- <br><div class=
=3D"gmail_signature">--<br>Gavin Andresen<br></div><div class=3D"gmail_sign=
ature"><br></div>
</div></div>
--001a1133b1c4139beb0515f871d1--
|
