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
|
Received: from sog-mx-1.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.191]
helo=mx.sourceforge.net)
by sfs-ml-3.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76)
(envelope-from <jtimon@monetize.io>) id 1WdLiO-00073y-Dq
for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Thu, 24 Apr 2014 15:37:32 +0000
Received: from mail-la0-f54.google.com ([209.85.215.54])
by sog-mx-1.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128)
(Exim 4.76) id 1WdLiL-0004zd-UO
for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Thu, 24 Apr 2014 15:37:31 +0000
Received: by mail-la0-f54.google.com with SMTP id e16so1830847lan.41
for <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>;
Thu, 24 Apr 2014 08:37:23 -0700 (PDT)
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
d=1e100.net; s=20130820;
h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date
:message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type;
bh=Ib8mp0rbu65muPwEiBXhVdttMACjZRZu9PlHnh+JLgE=;
b=ikmJ0dvdUV3IWu1WDK2Z2xAA/WkmiPGeTB2JSuyd6CjFeMvXYcWWsN0eZSDU8hm9YC
cX/gMuBVwT4X1kWVfXTba/uHMSRhBY6swY9OIGG/QV5DPL1HbkAFKc1BdYUg/0HzrfX9
VvVRMnoKF3ZBuy30WakdbeHjMQzoMsfYTiWcfJOYqxP3ywelJvOO6l0ZJ75ewZwKwXoX
pP0Vuq9+TvIvBzkZLV5evD4XkmMvSFA7XCrCPFGP+H6dOIaTVoTGpD44SlnuR9pINGvT
dmmLzuShA1IO5Wlqr/S8xd9uDOhYnP5AntciGwIMQP2HVyuWUYl9AFtDhPubQ8qBmBfN
9d0A==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQlZ1vm2W1/6ydU+qWykUMzB+tdD9zBYFxZIyPDa//k2t7jhakHWv8qPB4U/7UkZWyzS9nTV
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.152.116.99 with SMTP id jv3mr1681042lab.19.1398353843104;
Thu, 24 Apr 2014 08:37:23 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.112.185.4 with HTTP; Thu, 24 Apr 2014 08:37:22 -0700 (PDT)
X-Originating-IP: [85.59.56.59]
In-Reply-To: <CANEZrP2PZFVvH3oJyLW80e9W_Fa4bvqQ25E7T-ZFFuG9u-q1hQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CANEZrP0szimdFSk23aMfO8p2Xtgfbm6kZ=x3rmdPDFUD73xHMg@mail.gmail.com>
<CAE28kUQ9WOnHuFR6WYeU6rep3b74zDweTPxffF0L6FjZObXE6A@mail.gmail.com>
<CANEZrP3WBWi5h04yyQ115vXmVHupoj5MG+-8sx=2zEcCT5a9hg@mail.gmail.com>
<CAC1+kJNE+k4kcTj3Ap0-A=PdD1=+-k5hN4431Z99A+S7M3=BoQ@mail.gmail.com>
<CANEZrP3obO9rXKcX+G7bs2dd3AqEFOsO8pCUF6orrkGeZyr9Ew@mail.gmail.com>
<CAC1+kJPxwTm6qvh2GYT2XMJAPD5O4WHLOGBTRmchRmZ2wS4MSg@mail.gmail.com>
<CANEZrP2PZFVvH3oJyLW80e9W_Fa4bvqQ25E7T-ZFFuG9u-q1hQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 24 Apr 2014 17:37:22 +0200
Message-ID: <CAC1+kJOO1DyfWTex5OgsWx2ypsbBzz+r==-2JRDvRFymA0Ww1w@mail.gmail.com>
From: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Jorge_Tim=F3n?= <jtimon@monetize.io>
To: Mike Hearn <mike@plan99.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Spam-Report: Spam Filtering performed by mx.sourceforge.net.
See http://spamassassin.org/tag/ for more details.
X-Headers-End: 1WdLiL-0004zd-UO
Cc: Bitcoin Dev <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>
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 15:37:32 -0000
On 4/24/14, Mike Hearn <mike@plan99.net> wrote:
> You can't disentangle the two. Proof of work just makes a block chain hard
> to tamper with. What it contains is arbitrary. Honest miners build a block
> chain that's intended to stop double spending. Dishonest miners don't.
> They're both engaging in proof of work, to different ends.
Yes, you can disentangle replace-by-fee policies from "rewriting
history" attacks.
That's exactly what I'm saying.
Proof of work is the most important thing that makes the blockchain
hard to tamper with.
>> Whatever, let's keep calling stupid miners "honest miners"
>>
>
> No, let's not. Your definition of "smart miner" is one I'd called "stupid
> miner" (or possibly "short bitcoin miner"). They are miners who would
> reduce the value of their coins, by making their own system less useful.
> That's not smart, that's simply short termism taken to an extreme, sort of
> like a business owner who puts so much pressure on his employees they all
> quit. He might have gained a bit more profit in the short term, but only at
> the cost of destroying his business that would have given lower but
> sustainable returns over the long term.
Whatever, pick the terms yourself but let's just stick to the same ones, please.
I've read this argument before, but I simply don't buy it because I
disagree with the premise that replace-by-fee reduces the value of the
coins (not to mention we shouldn't assume miners stock coins for
long).
I think replace-by-fee policies are actually an improvement over
first-saw-first-included policies.
>> This persistent argument from authority is annoying.
>>
>
> Peter always says this too, but it's again an incorrect position. This is
> not an argument from authority.
I don't know about other occasions with other people but what you just
used with me was an argument from authority fallacy. Now you're using
a false analogy to try to convince us you didn't.
If I was saying "we should change the maximum from 21 M to 100 M
because mining subsidies could continue for longer".
"Mining subsidies aren't necessarily a good thing" or
"That's no justification for a hardfork" or
"That could destroy people's confidence in the currency"
would be logical arguments.
"No, because Satoshi picked 21 M" would be an argument from authority fallacy.
>> That's not what I'm saying. Miners that don't mine on top of the
>> longest chain are dishonest by my own definition as well.
>>
>
> Right, but I don't accept this definition of honesty. That's not a
> definition any man on the street would use:
Whatever let's use whatever definitions you want, if I don't like your
definition of honesty I will just invent a new term to define my own.
> "If you pay for something with forged bank notes and walk out
> immediately, you are honest. But if you pay for something with forged bank
> notes and hang around for longer than 10 minutes, you are dishonest"
Sorry, I don't see the analogy.
> That would sound silly to anyone because what's so special about 10
> minutes? It's the act of passing counterfeit money and stealing from the
> merchant that's the dishonest act, how long it takes is irrelevant.
10 minutes is what Satoshi picked. Just kidding...
> In Bitcoin, the dishonest act by the user is signing for the same output
> twice (ignoring special protocols here), and the dishonest act by the miner
> is deviating from normal behaviour for a fee to try and trick the recipient
> into believing they have been paid. The exact details are something
> computer scientists care about, but the average Bitcoin user would not.
People need to understand that Bitcoin transactions are not instant.
For instants transactions you need to rely somehow on trust, use some
trust-less offchain mechanism or use a payment protocol that would
make double-spending irrational (like the one described in the other
thread that uses replace-by-fee).
So I think miner's default behavior should be replace-by-fee. But that
doesn't imply that I want miners to rewrite pow-validated history.
|
