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
|
Received: from sog-mx-1.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.191]
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 1WeQ6p-00085e-KY
for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Sun, 27 Apr 2014 14:31:11 +0000
Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-1.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of gmail.com
designates 209.85.219.53 as permitted sender)
client-ip=209.85.219.53; envelope-from=mh.in.england@gmail.com;
helo=mail-oa0-f53.google.com;
Received: from mail-oa0-f53.google.com ([209.85.219.53])
by sog-mx-1.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128)
(Exim 4.76) id 1WeQ6o-0008Q1-Pm
for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Sun, 27 Apr 2014 14:31:11 +0000
Received: by mail-oa0-f53.google.com with SMTP id j17so6265524oag.12
for <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>;
Sun, 27 Apr 2014 07:31:05 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.60.150.143 with SMTP id ui15mr2271448oeb.50.1398609065425;
Sun, 27 Apr 2014 07:31:05 -0700 (PDT)
Sender: mh.in.england@gmail.com
Received: by 10.76.96.180 with HTTP; Sun, 27 Apr 2014 07:31:05 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <535CFDB4.1000200@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>
<5359E509.4080907@gmail.com>
<CANEZrP0bKe-=T5ps0myLZjo60tv2mkm3Bw0o4e-9y7zb1h5eDg@mail.gmail.com>
<535A60FE.10209@gmail.com>
<CANEZrP0y45eSVgbzXYmvYy1WEQNyd=tmC2EpZgGSB28poXSzDw@mail.gmail.com>
<535BA357.6050607@gmail.com>
<CANOOu=_T82zuV79DWZFGK0Nomhp-Y4tqOhw6ZHhCLb2uGtdR5w@mail.gmail.com>
<535CFDB4.1000200@gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 27 Apr 2014 16:31:05 +0200
X-Google-Sender-Auth: izdkzjcaUlkt6m2dEA80KqiAldc
Message-ID: <CANEZrP2jTP+uCuXswopheJwBBmMp5ZHdqxua1sAhLF=cOnhPOg@mail.gmail.com>
From: Mike Hearn <mike@plan99.net>
To: Gareth Williams <gacrux@gmail.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=047d7b5d302a86406704f8070c4b
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: 1WeQ6o-0008Q1-Pm
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: Sun, 27 Apr 2014 14:31:11 -0000
--047d7b5d302a86406704f8070c4b
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
>
> That moves us away from a pure trustless system built upon a small
> democratic foundation (as something of a necessary evil in an imperfect
> world where humans run our computers and use our system) and toward a
> "democratic system".
>
> You don't have to agree, but I hope you can understand the point I'm
> making :-)
Yep, your point is well made.
I don't have much more to say about this proposal specifically, but I think
this whole question of what changes are OK and what would be a violation of
the social contract will get discussed endlessly over the coming years. Put
another way, what do Bitcoin's users expect and want - a system that
evolves or a system that remains exactly as they found it? There will be
good arguments on both sides, and the answer will probably be different on
a case by case basis. But personally I'm skeptical of any argument that
argues against change for its own sake. It has to be an argument rooted in
a careful analysis of costs and benefits.
--047d7b5d302a86406704f8070c4b
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">That moves us away from a pure trustless system =
built upon a small<br>
democratic foundation (as something of a necessary evil in an imperfect<br>
world where humans run our computers and use our system) and toward a<br>
"democratic system".<br>
<br>
You don't have to agree, but I hope you can understand the point I'=
m<br>
making :-)</blockquote><div><br></div><div>Yep, your point is well made.</d=
iv><div><br></div><div>I don't have much more to say about this proposa=
l specifically, but I think this whole question of what changes are OK and =
what would be a violation of the social contract will get discussed endless=
ly over the coming years. Put another way, what do Bitcoin's users expe=
ct and want - a system that evolves or a system that remains exactly as the=
y found it? There will be good arguments on both sides, and the answer will=
probably be different on a case by case basis. But personally I'm skep=
tical of any argument that argues against change for its own sake. It has t=
o be an argument rooted in a careful analysis of costs and benefits.</div>
</div></div></div>
--047d7b5d302a86406704f8070c4b--
|
