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
|
Return-Path: <gavinandresen@gmail.com>
Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org
[172.17.192.35])
by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C07411C42
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Tue, 29 Sep 2015 18:02:01 +0000 (UTC)
X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6
Received: from mail-la0-f50.google.com (mail-la0-f50.google.com
[209.85.215.50])
by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 08D831F9
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Tue, 29 Sep 2015 18:02:01 +0000 (UTC)
Received: by labzv5 with SMTP id zv5so18465809lab.1
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Tue, 29 Sep 2015 11:01:59 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113;
h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to
:cc:content-type;
bh=9HT24dd7agIQp9vQGrOBBlz0izPbhXcugrpc+Lh5cGs=;
b=zxmufK0gjlTWP1zlwFc72PqfrMTYpkY+XWsGaZjytELHK9rVm7ZADg9dqSxwltvfOm
f/Hp/eZZYluKZP7nqWkFmlfYq4w+uHHBhVDIc189J/7mSILLAev9nddLTMPSv96tqxbi
/7+9caZ82JuISFGQXB72XA3q5xZrynsi3H9kWl028S4IFVgyjKU7mKGmEEbmih3PjwBE
QukamA0KrigKjIbFjiMAIuTcPxZ4pWxzIT6eIrhMxG71FzzpcZ95rJtv6itspTmR30AF
wPkhxmin7vhX2s2jzKxaP/szfHvUhyULJsEeFUZn8eOIoytWLt8jvhkY5R+8SCbOMXnb
GnIg==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.112.25.4 with SMTP id y4mr7763029lbf.113.1443549719106; Tue,
29 Sep 2015 11:01:59 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.25.200.214 with HTTP; Tue, 29 Sep 2015 11:01:59 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <CAJfRnm4WwtNvChcCGCzDLJZrg3VZqJz-X-XXC0Ftyga3x=P8-w@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CABsx9T2pDwNBrC-3w8vHeaLYZ6eoNTNU0gW741Y51YL9hU-kiA@mail.gmail.com>
<CAJfRnm7gWmXUj=9Dh2o5sEXOMe6Y_4P=naY3cVt1gfLRKOpmnw@mail.gmail.com>
<CABsx9T0YEm7mFYosRVbcG_XgtSi8BbUraGoixy4e2=nyCBeFaA@mail.gmail.com>
<CAJfRnm5=yrWE95T3+fzM_PxGxWJ38OnJMVxynTOKK1X9BTrgCg@mail.gmail.com>
<CA+w+GKTVzaEqWeR9m2ck6z3WZ_OWJ5hgkqyQhriJDLPVoHzfGQ@mail.gmail.com>
<CAJfRnm4WwtNvChcCGCzDLJZrg3VZqJz-X-XXC0Ftyga3x=P8-w@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 2015 14:01:59 -0400
Message-ID: <CABsx9T07DUjWoEmqmysya90Fxf4RkM7K18ZaP7pP3Hgk5rN-_Q@mail.gmail.com>
From: Gavin Andresen <gavinandresen@gmail.com>
To: Allen Piscitello <allen.piscitello@gmail.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a11c3d06a391e020520e69c2f
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.7 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED,
DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,FREEMAIL_FROM,HTML_MESSAGE,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW
autolearn=ham version=3.3.1
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on
smtp1.linux-foundation.org
Cc: Bitcoin Dev <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Is it possible for there to be two chains after a
hard fork?
X-BeenThere: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Bitcoin Development Discussion <bitcoin-dev.lists.linuxfoundation.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/options/bitcoin-dev>,
<mailto:bitcoin-dev-request@lists.linuxfoundation.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/>
List-Post: <mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
List-Help: <mailto:bitcoin-dev-request@lists.linuxfoundation.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev>,
<mailto:bitcoin-dev-request@lists.linuxfoundation.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 29 Sep 2015 18:02:01 -0000
--001a11c3d06a391e020520e69c2f
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
We really shouldn't have to go over "Bitcoin 101" on this mailing list, and
this discussion should move to the not-yet-created more general discussion
list. I started this thread as a sanity check on myself, because I keep
seeing smart people saying that two chains could persist for more than a
few days after a hard fork, and I still don't see how that would possibly
work.
So: "fraud" would be 51% miners sending you bitcoin in exchange for
something of value, you wait for confirmations and send them that something
of value, and then the 51% reverses the transaction.
Running a full node doesn't help.
On Tue, Sep 29, 2015 at 1:55 PM, Allen Piscitello <
allen.piscitello@gmail.com> wrote:
> >A dishonest miner majority can commit fraud against you, they can mine
> only empty blocks, they can do various other things that render your money
> worthless.
>
> Mining empty blocks is not fraud.
>
> If you want to use terms like "honest miners" and "fraud", please define
> them so we can at least be on the same page.
>
> I am defining an honest miner as one that follows the rules of the
> protocol. Obviously your definition is different.
>
> On Tue, Sep 29, 2015 at 12:51 PM, Mike Hearn <hearn@vinumeris.com> wrote:
>
>> >because Bitcoin's basic security assumption is that a supermajority of
>>> miners are 'honest.'
>>>
>>> Only if you rely on SPV.
>>>
>>
>> No, you rely on miners honesty even if you run a full node. This is in
>> the white paper. A dishonest miner majority can commit fraud against you,
>> they can mine only empty blocks, they can do various other things that
>> render your money worthless.
>>
>
>
--
--
Gavin Andresen
--001a11c3d06a391e020520e69c2f
Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
<div dir=3D"ltr">We really shouldn't have to go over "Bitcoin 101&=
quot; on this mailing list, and this discussion should move to the not-yet-=
created more general discussion list.=C2=A0 I started this thread as a sani=
ty check on myself, because I keep seeing smart people saying that two chai=
ns could persist for more than a few days after a hard fork, and I still do=
n't see how that would possibly work.<div><br></div><div>So: "frau=
d" would be 51% miners sending you bitcoin in exchange for something o=
f value, you wait for confirmations and send them that something of value, =
and then the 51% reverses the transaction.</div><div><br></div><div>Running=
a full node doesn't help.</div><div><div class=3D"gmail_extra"><br><di=
v class=3D"gmail_quote">On Tue, Sep 29, 2015 at 1:55 PM, Allen Piscitello <=
span dir=3D"ltr"><<a href=3D"mailto:allen.piscitello@gmail.com" target=
=3D"_blank">allen.piscitello@gmail.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote=
class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc soli=
d;padding-left:1ex"><div dir=3D"ltr"><span class=3D"">><span style=3D"fo=
nt-size:12.8px">A dishonest miner majority can commit fraud against you, th=
ey can mine only empty blocks, they can do various other things that render=
your money worthless.</span><div><span style=3D"font-size:12.8px"><br></sp=
an></div></span><div><span style=3D"font-size:12.8px">Mining empty blocks i=
s not fraud.</span></div><div><span style=3D"font-size:12.8px"><br></span><=
/div><div><span style=3D"font-size:12.8px">If you want to use terms like &q=
uot;honest miners" and "fraud", please define them so we can=
at least be on the same page.</span></div><div><span style=3D"font-size:12=
.8px"><br></span></div><div><span style=3D"font-size:12.8px">I am defining =
an honest miner as one that follows the rules of the protocol.=C2=A0 Obviou=
sly your definition is different.</span></div></div><div class=3D"HOEnZb"><=
div class=3D"h5"><div class=3D"gmail_extra"><br><div class=3D"gmail_quote">=
On Tue, Sep 29, 2015 at 12:51 PM, Mike Hearn <span dir=3D"ltr"><<a href=
=3D"mailto:hearn@vinumeris.com" target=3D"_blank">hearn@vinumeris.com</a>&g=
t;</span> wrote:<br><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0=
.8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div dir=3D"ltr"><div cl=
ass=3D"gmail_extra"><div class=3D"gmail_quote"><span><blockquote class=3D"g=
mail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-l=
eft:1ex"><div dir=3D"ltr"><span><div><span style=3D"font-size:12.8px">><=
/span><span style=3D"font-size:12.8px">because Bitcoin's basic security=
assumption is that a supermajority of miners are 'honest.'</span><=
/div><div><span style=3D"font-size:12.8px"><br></span></div></span><div><sp=
an style=3D"font-size:12.8px">Only if you rely on SPV.</span></div></div></=
blockquote><div><br></div></span><div>No, you rely on miners honesty even i=
f you run a full node. This is in the white paper. A dishonest miner majori=
ty can commit fraud against you, they can mine only empty blocks, they can =
do various other things that render your money worthless.</div></div></div>=
</div>
</blockquote></div><br></div>
</div></div></blockquote></div><br><br clear=3D"all"><div><br></div>-- <br>=
<div class=3D"gmail_signature">--<br>Gavin Andresen<br></div>
</div></div></div>
--001a11c3d06a391e020520e69c2f--
|
