Return-Path: Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org [172.17.192.35]) by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 21264899 for ; Sun, 26 Mar 2017 09:13:20 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from mail-yw0-f179.google.com (mail-yw0-f179.google.com [209.85.161.179]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7CE59160 for ; Sun, 26 Mar 2017 09:13:19 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-yw0-f179.google.com with SMTP id p77so15237897ywg.1 for ; Sun, 26 Mar 2017 02:13:19 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=oLGOCYLNUkwWtbAaAL+3Kt9nURrMX+mcvNFTTOjTUOA=; b=MCbfYnBoLawm3S/ZlxbGzZrPAbSzWcPdPTaeM5SS1bPwvUBE4SqVxHFBMhLG/t7TSH EW++jsMcrd0YkEHjVnjv9sErb9EDoJqMFBZykLiGv9iAd9QBC5e5pwgrHO8KwPAkhtvQ HLAkI+lWpDSmaAzjSvp71SSRwfIKcmQOxQ4C9f7nt96IMT5lz3i68MIAgni/gFYI8bYA 3nSYlUnXaNg/NIbZNaWEqnajR2Wcp2BGGpnWoQ/VFRTZMrZcf5KZ4ohj0nDOnQBAnLg4 a+715ej6GcAbE4EdcVA33mCl46kzzD5wwX8YdM+tYkxvGj3E4lRw6vUSONM5gX3YrZF5 xExg== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=oLGOCYLNUkwWtbAaAL+3Kt9nURrMX+mcvNFTTOjTUOA=; b=d6zm8KslFc9vATuusKe1xCLD1Z+QDJqeddtUcMZg0pz/mgUbz3lvP65B5AOKspDa/Q M5MdyKvDVFgd1/VS4msjvFnrjEcsoAM35yxNlZeqr6NasMAfthLYB6OCdt6OQQYfXLyy eSSbZGMva0Y43ahR+Iq4DivB+R+9/2wC9XBsgVZCQDeDkoEFnorSNV5zp1DxoJqh9GOu TGz7LQUGl6TfRGntkQV4G92boEKwemT/xRj9QlZso8uLCFGVh3nfKMPFfKZ81WgNY27W s0FVth2NqS9gbksnLmm5XmNKlHgG3y/FRwmFxs6h07L6wisLx06NHMBGZeH0klaJLfyy APgA== X-Gm-Message-State: AFeK/H1FaHvCKE4Uk0ZyAWDxjQJub1KoB9VywEFxapKsWNMP3ip7VdvTSPbMEvtykelTFBZsSm0TQ/nnATcwWQ== X-Received: by 10.129.89.135 with SMTP id n129mr12435441ywb.94.1490519598398; Sun, 26 Mar 2017 02:13:18 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.37.55.150 with HTTP; Sun, 26 Mar 2017 02:13:17 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.37.55.150 with HTTP; Sun, 26 Mar 2017 02:13:17 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: <5b9ba6c4-6d8f-9c0b-2420-2be6c30f87b5@cannon-ciota.info> <35ba77db-f95a-4517-c960-8ad42a633ba0@gmail.com> <9C2A6867-470D-4336-8439-17F4E0CA4B17@gmx.com> From: Chris Pacia Date: Sun, 26 Mar 2017 05:13:17 -0400 Message-ID: To: Alex Morcos , Bitcoin Protocol Discussion Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a11470b7431844e054b9ea334 X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.5 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID, DKIM_VALID_AU, FREEMAIL_FROM, HTML_MESSAGE, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE, RCVD_IN_SORBS_SPAM autolearn=no version=3.3.1 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on smtp1.linux-foundation.org Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Defending against empty or near empty blocks from malicious miner takeover? X-BeenThere: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Bitcoin Protocol Discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 26 Mar 2017 09:13:20 -0000 --001a11470b7431844e054b9ea334 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 On Mar 25, 2017 10:38 PM, "Alex Morcos via bitcoin-dev" < bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote: As a Bitcoin user I find it abhorrent the way you are proposing to intentionally cripple the chain and rules I want to use instead of just peacefully splitting. I just want to point out what appears to be doublespeak going on here. First, I think it would seem obvious to an observer that a sizable portion of the community (certainly greater than 5%) view segwit as preventing "rules I want to use instead of just peacefully splitting" but no consideration was given to these people when designing segwit as a softfork. I believe it was Luke who went as far as saying consensus does not matter when it comes softforks. Furthermore, when segwit was first introduced it kicked off a round of softfork/hardfork debate which I participated in. The primary concern that I and other raised was precisely what is going on now.. that miners could unilaterally impose an unpopular change to the protocol rules. At the time I told, rather forcefully, by multiple people that miners have an "absolute right" to softfork in whatever rules they want. Which, of course, is absurd on it's face. But I don't see how people can make such claims on the one hand, and then complain when this process is used against them. It amounts to nothing more than "When it's rules I like we get to impose them on non-consenting users. When it's rules I don't like it's an attack on the network". It was completely obvious this entire time that softforks were a very slippery slope, now we are indeed sliding down that slope. --001a11470b7431844e054b9ea334 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable


On Mar 25, 2017 10:38 PM, "Alex Morcos via bitcoin-d= ev" <bitco= in-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:

As a Bitcoin user I find it abhorrent the= way you are proposing to intentionally cripple the chain and rules I want = to use instead of just peacefully splitting.
=

I just want to point ou= t what appears to be doublespeak going on here.=C2=A0

First, I think it would seem obvious to an ob= server that a sizable portion of the community (certainly greater than 5%) = view segwit as preventing "rules I want to use instead of just peacefu= lly splitting" but no consideration was given to these people when des= igning segwit as a softfork. I believe it was Luke who went as far as sayin= g consensus does not matter when it comes softforks.=C2=A0

Furthermore, when segwit was first intro= duced it kicked off a round of softfork/hardfork debate which I participate= d in. The primary concern that I and other raised was precisely what is goi= ng on now.. that miners could unilaterally impose an unpopular change to th= e protocol rules.=C2=A0

= At the time I told, rather forcefully, by multiple people that miners have = an "absolute right" to softfork in whatever rules they want. Whic= h, of course, is absurd on it's face.

=
But I don't see how people can make such claims on th= e one hand, and then complain when this process is used against them.
=

It amounts to nothing more th= an "When it's rules I like we get to impose them on non-consenting= users. When it's rules I don't like it's an attack on the netw= ork".=C2=A0

It was = completely obvious this entire time that softforks were a very slippery slo= pe, now we are indeed sliding down that slope.=C2=A0


--001a11470b7431844e054b9ea334--