Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-2.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of gmail.com
	designates 209.85.214.179 as permitted sender)
	client-ip=209.85.214.179; envelope-from=mh.in.england@gmail.com;
	helo=mail-ob0-f179.google.com; 
MIME-Version: 1.0
Sender: mh.in.england@gmail.com
In-Reply-To: <20140428214102.GA8347@netbook.cypherspace.org>
References: <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>
	<20140428214102.GA8347@netbook.cypherspace.org>
Date: Tue, 29 Apr 2014 16:13:28 +0200
Message-ID: <CANEZrP0E=i6gyJwvLZRTeKvqaVrxR69=UzJWsAqaK2=QSdtn_A@mail.gmail.com>
From: Mike Hearn <mike@plan99.net>
To: Adam Back <adam@cypherspace.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=047d7b41cd2831314104f82f0965
Cc: Bitcoin Dev <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>
Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] Coinbase reallocation to discourage
	Finney attacks
Precedence: list

--047d7b41cd2831314104f82f0965
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8

I do think we need to move beyond this idea of Bitcoin being some kind of
elegant embodiment of natural mathematical law. It just ain't so.

Every time miners and nodes ignore a block that creates >formula() coins
that's a majority vote on a controversial political matter, as evidenced by
the disagreement with mainstream economics and that it's one of the most
common things for alt coins to change. Indeed Satoshi's chosen inflation
formula is a highly political statement on the value of inflation - he
could have programmed Bitcoin to inflate forever and avoided a whole area
of politics, but he chose not to.

So please, let's agree to accept that Bitcoin is ultimately just a piece of
software that encodes rules helping us run our little community in some
specific ways. It's not physics and we should believe our own hype by
pretending it is.

On Mon, Apr 28, 2014 at 11:41 PM, Adam Back <adam@cypherspace.org> wrote:

> I think the reason that it would likely work out badly is that its not
> provable, and so no consensus rule can be constructed requiring proof, so
> then it risks devolving to a political decision.
>

It's the other way around. If miners decide to fork the chain then that
leaves no proof (beyond the old blocks, which could have been a natural
fork - there's no way to know - and nodes don't want to keep them around
anyway). If they explicitly vote to get the same effect but without
actually forking, it leaves a proof in the form of the votes in the
coinbase that can be seen afterwards.


> Step 3: Finney attackers vote down other pools to make the point.


It only works if the majority of hashpower is controlled by attackers, in
which case Bitcoin is already doomed. So it doesn't matter at that point.

--047d7b41cd2831314104f82f0965
Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<div dir=3D"ltr">I do think we need to move beyond this idea of Bitcoin bei=
ng some kind of elegant embodiment of natural mathematical law. It just ain=
&#39;t so.=C2=A0<div><br></div><div>Every time miners and nodes ignore a bl=
ock that creates &gt;formula() coins that&#39;s a majority vote on a contro=
versial political matter, as evidenced by the disagreement with mainstream =
economics and that it&#39;s one of the most common things for alt coins to =
change. Indeed Satoshi&#39;s chosen inflation formula is a highly political=
 statement on the value of inflation - he could have programmed Bitcoin to =
inflate forever and avoided a whole area of politics, but he chose not to.<=
/div>
<div><br></div><div>So please, let&#39;s agree to accept that Bitcoin is ul=
timately just a piece of software that encodes rules helping us run our lit=
tle community in some specific ways. It&#39;s not physics and we should bel=
ieve our own hype by pretending it is.</div>
<div><div><div class=3D"gmail_extra"><br><div class=3D"gmail_quote">On Mon,=
 Apr 28, 2014 at 11:41 PM, Adam Back <span dir=3D"ltr">&lt;<a href=3D"mailt=
o:adam@cypherspace.org" target=3D"_blank">adam@cypherspace.org</a>&gt;</spa=
n> wrote:<br>
<blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1p=
x #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">I think the reason that it would likely work=
 out badly is that its not<br>
provable, and so no consensus rule can be constructed requiring proof, so<b=
r>
then it risks devolving to a political decision.<br></blockquote><div><br><=
/div><div>It&#39;s the other way around. If miners decide to fork the chain=
 then that leaves no proof (beyond the old blocks, which could have been a =
natural fork - there&#39;s no way to know - and nodes don&#39;t want to kee=
p them around anyway). If they explicitly vote to get the same effect but w=
ithout actually forking, it leaves a proof in the form of the votes in the =
coinbase that can be seen afterwards.</div>
<div>=C2=A0</div><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8=
ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">Step 3: Finney attackers vo=
te down other pools to make the point.</blockquote><div><br></div><div>It o=
nly works if the majority of hashpower is controlled by attackers, in which=
 case Bitcoin is already doomed. So it doesn&#39;t matter at that point.=C2=
=A0</div>
</div></div></div></div></div>

--047d7b41cd2831314104f82f0965--