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
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
184
185
186
187
188
189
190
191
192
193
194
195
196
197
198
199
200
201
202
203
204
205
206
207
208
|
Received: from sog-mx-4.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.194]
helo=mx.sourceforge.net)
by sfs-ml-4.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76)
(envelope-from <sergiolerner@certimix.com>) id 1WdLXd-0003ur-7c
for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Thu, 24 Apr 2014 15:26:25 +0000
X-ACL-Warn:
Received: from p3plsmtpa06-10.prod.phx3.secureserver.net ([173.201.192.111])
by sog-mx-4.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76)
id 1WdLXb-0004aP-QD for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Thu, 24 Apr 2014 15:26:25 +0000
Received: from [192.168.0.23] ([201.231.95.129])
by p3plsmtpa06-10.prod.phx3.secureserver.net with
id trDh1n00A2nUpUh01rDimA; Thu, 24 Apr 2014 08:13:44 -0700
Message-ID: <53592A24.5000007@certimix.com>
Date: Thu, 24 Apr 2014 12:13:40 -0300
From: Sergio Lerner <sergiolerner@certimix.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64;
rv:16.0) Gecko/20121026 Thunderbird/16.0.2
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Mike Hearn <mike@plan99.net>,
bitcoin-development <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>
References: <CANEZrP0szimdFSk23aMfO8p2Xtgfbm6kZ=x3rmdPDFUD73xHMg@mail.gmail.com>
<CAAS2fgTS65b0mfJakEA5s3xJHuWU2BDW8MbEVgMFMNz8YAmEiA@mail.gmail.com>
<CANEZrP15DDdfT+o5jVKMO=tGTvHYx53yzhXfaVyzq7imfwJsZQ@mail.gmail.com>
<CAAS2fgTJpFQKeVTQsAeqe0UK-2XhrLZG4oocEHM11_spWLtrEA@mail.gmail.com>
<CANEZrP0fUhiFeH4A1Y9sLCORpggJs3dxHz+exgpKaLQe9rgFeA@mail.gmail.com>
<CAAS2fgR1dRFVqhTNn55dZ6FS5zDM0aHs4ROPSD37hWwzLUKfCg@mail.gmail.com>
<CANEZrP2t09bzmDkkWK3V2GpqEt54KhFnUQ8_u9ULMqniMaOA8Q@mail.gmail.com>
<CAKuKjyV+FQs1goNK1uWXVg7ky4aGiROcTZ5idM3Ug2-+5bTc2w@mail.gmail.com>
<CANEZrP0pJgjCzEZg19-Xnf20PD7FCRqF8=jQ_VBrznq=w_vQGQ@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CANEZrP0pJgjCzEZg19-Xnf20PD7FCRqF8=jQ_VBrznq=w_vQGQ@mail.gmail.com>
X-Enigmail-Version: 1.4.6
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
boundary="------------090405060002080201030106"
X-Spam-Score: 1.0 (+)
X-Spam-Report: Spam Filtering performed by mx.sourceforge.net.
See http://spamassassin.org/tag/ for more details.
-0.0 RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE RBL: Sender listed at http://www.dnswl.org/,
no trust [173.201.192.111 listed in list.dnswl.org]
1.0 HTML_MESSAGE BODY: HTML included in message
X-Headers-End: 1WdLXb-0004aP-QD
Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] Coinbase reallocation to discourage
Finney attacks
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: Thu, 24 Apr 2014 15:26:25 -0000
This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
--------------090405060002080201030106
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
On 23/04/2014 05:51 p.m., Mike Hearn wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 23, 2014 at 10:44 PM, Adam Ritter <aritter@gmail.com
> <mailto:aritter@gmail.com>> wrote:
>
> Isn't a faster blockchain for transactions (maybe as a sidechain)
> solving the problem? If there would be a safe way for
> 0-confirmation transactions, the Bitcoin blockchain wouldn't even
> be needed.
>
>
> The 10 minute average comes from a desire to balance wasted work due
> to natural chain splits with latency. With a very fast block interval
> you end up with lots of forks and things take longer to converge,
> also, it can make attacks easier because an attacker is building on
> his own blocks so he doesn't suffer propagation delays and the
> attendant splits.
>
> It's not clear you can just make a faster block chain. 10 minutes is
> somewhat arbitrary, it could be 5 minutes and the system would still
> work, but it probably can't be 5 seconds.
5 seconds block interval is possible. I've simulate it with great
success and I encourage anyone to repeat or check my simulations.
There are a very few protocol modifications that are required to allow 5
seconds block, and most of them have already been discussed in the forums.
For more information you can check my post:
http://bitslog.wordpress.com/2014/02/17/5-sec-block-interval/
Also NimbleCoin is a new alt-coin that uses 5-sec block intervals,
allows 100 tps and .... it's based on BitcoinJ (NimbleCoinJ now). So not
only it is possible, but it was coded by Mike itself.
Important note: the 5-sec block interval method probably requires a
block reward forever. It doesn't work well if there is no block reward
at all.
>
> Unfortunately for best physical-world usability you really need very
> fast payments. A few seconds is competitive with modern credit cards.
Another solution to achieve <5 secs block intervals is this:
http://bitslog.wordpress.com/2014/03/20/mincen-a-new-protocol-to-achieve-instant-payments/
So the problem with 0-confirmations is solely of Bitcoin and other
alt-coins, new alt-coins may achieve instant transactions and no not
have to rely on 0-confirmations.
Best regards,
Sergio.
--------------090405060002080201030106
Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
<br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 23/04/2014 05:51 p.m., Mike Hearn
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote
cite="mid:CANEZrP0pJgjCzEZg19-Xnf20PD7FCRqF8=jQ_VBrznq=w_vQGQ@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">
<div dir="ltr">
<div class="gmail_extra">
<div class="gmail_quote">On Wed, Apr 23, 2014 at 10:44 PM,
Adam Ritter <span dir="ltr"><<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:aritter@gmail.com" target="_blank">aritter@gmail.com</a>></span>
wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0
.8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div dir="ltr">Isn't a faster blockchain for transactions
(maybe as a sidechain) solving the problem? If there
would be a safe way for 0-confirmation transactions, the
Bitcoin blockchain wouldn't even be needed.</div>
</blockquote>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>The 10 minute average comes from a desire to balance
wasted work due to natural chain splits with latency. With
a very fast block interval you end up with lots of forks
and things take longer to converge, also, it can make
attacks easier because an attacker is building on his own
blocks so he doesn't suffer propagation delays and the
attendant splits.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>It's not clear you can just make a faster block chain.
10 minutes is somewhat arbitrary, it could be 5 minutes
and the system would still work, but it probably can't be
5 seconds. <br>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
5 seconds block interval is possible. I've simulate it with great
success and I encourage anyone to repeat or check my simulations.<br>
<br>
There are a very few protocol modifications that are required to
allow 5 seconds block, and most of them have already been discussed
in the forums.<br>
For more information you can check my post:
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://bitslog.wordpress.com/2014/02/17/5-sec-block-interval/">http://bitslog.wordpress.com/2014/02/17/5-sec-block-interval/</a><br>
Also NimbleCoin is a new alt-coin that uses 5-sec block intervals,
allows 100 tps and .... it's based on BitcoinJ (NimbleCoinJ now). So
not only it is possible, but it was coded by Mike itself.<br>
Important note: the 5-sec block interval method probably requires a
block reward forever. It doesn't work well if there is no block
reward at all.<br>
<br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:CANEZrP0pJgjCzEZg19-Xnf20PD7FCRqF8=jQ_VBrznq=w_vQGQ@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">
<div dir="ltr">
<div class="gmail_extra">
<div class="gmail_quote">
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Unfortunately for best physical-world usability you
really need very fast payments. A few seconds is
competitive with modern credit cards.<br>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
Another solution to achieve <5 secs block intervals is this:
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://bitslog.wordpress.com/2014/03/20/mincen-a-new-protocol-to-achieve-instant-payments/">http://bitslog.wordpress.com/2014/03/20/mincen-a-new-protocol-to-achieve-instant-payments/</a><br>
<br>
So the problem with 0-confirmations is solely of Bitcoin and other
alt-coins, new alt-coins may achieve instant transactions and no not
have to rely on 0-confirmations.<br>
<br>
Best regards,<br>
Sergio.<br>
<br>
</body>
</html>
--------------090405060002080201030106--
|
