Received: from sog-mx-3.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.193] helo=mx.sourceforge.net) by sfs-ml-3.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76) (envelope-from ) id 1Wdi33-0001BM-N9 for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Fri, 25 Apr 2014 15:28:21 +0000 Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-3.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of gmail.com designates 209.85.219.51 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.85.219.51; envelope-from=mh.in.england@gmail.com; helo=mail-oa0-f51.google.com; Received: from mail-oa0-f51.google.com ([209.85.219.51]) by sog-mx-3.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128) (Exim 4.76) id 1Wdi32-0004FD-QN for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Fri, 25 Apr 2014 15:28:21 +0000 Received: by mail-oa0-f51.google.com with SMTP id i4so4329583oah.24 for ; Fri, 25 Apr 2014 08:28:15 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.182.55.65 with SMTP id q1mr1898693obp.70.1398439695492; Fri, 25 Apr 2014 08:28:15 -0700 (PDT) Sender: mh.in.england@gmail.com Received: by 10.76.96.180 with HTTP; Fri, 25 Apr 2014 08:28:15 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <535A60FE.10209@gmail.com> References: <5359E509.4080907@gmail.com> <535A60FE.10209@gmail.com> Date: Fri, 25 Apr 2014 17:28:15 +0200 X-Google-Sender-Auth: dn7JludfizTWUR74NugPmtmR7Uc Message-ID: From: Mike Hearn To: Gareth Williams Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=089e015388484a2c3604f7df9d3b 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 0.0 HTML_OBFUSCATE_05_10 BODY: Message is 5% to 10% HTML obfuscation 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: 1Wdi32-0004FD-QN Cc: Bitcoin Dev 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: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 25 Apr 2014 15:28:21 -0000 --089e015388484a2c3604f7df9d3b Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 > > When you have a *bitcoin* TXn buried under 100 blocks you can be damn > sure that money is yours - but only because the rules for interpreting > data in the blockchain are publicly documented and (hopefully) > immutable. If they're mutable then the PoW alone gives me no confidence > that the money is really mine, and we're left with a much less useful > system. This should be more sacred than the 21m limit. Well, I think we should avoid the term "sacred" - nothing is sacred because we're not building a religion here, we're engineering a tool. Consider a world in which 1 satoshi is too valuable to represent some kinds of transactions, so those transactions stop happening even though we all agree they're useful. The obvious solution is to change the rules so there can be 210 million coins and 10x everyones UTXOs at some pre-agreed flag day. We probably wouldn't phrase it like that, it's easier for people to imagine what's happening if it's phrased as "adding more places after the decimal point" or something, but at the protocol level coins are represented using integers, so it'd have to be implemented as a multiply. Would this be a violation of the social contract? A violation of all that is sacred? I don't think so, it'd just be sensible engineering and there'd be strong consensus for that exactly because 21 million *is* so arbitrary. If all balances and prices multiply 100-fold overnight, no wealth is reallocated which would be the *actual* violation of the social contract: we just get more resolution for setting prices. So. The thing that protects your money from confiscation is not proof of work. PoW is just a database synchronisation mechanism. The thing that protects your money from confiscation is a strong group consensus that theft is bad. But that's a social rule, not a mathematical rule. --089e015388484a2c3604f7df9d3b Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
When you have a *bitcoin* TXn buried under 100 b= locks you can be damn
sure that money is yours - but only because the rules for interpreting
data in the blockchain are publicly documented and (hopefully)
immutable. If they're mutable then the PoW alone gives me no confidence=
that the money is really mine, and we're left with a much less useful system. This should be more sacred than the 21m limit.
Well, I think we should avoid the term "sacred" - not= hing is sacred because we're not building a religion here, we're en= gineering a tool.

Consider a world in which 1 satoshi is too valuable to = represent some kinds of transactions, so those transactions stop happening = even though we all agree they're useful. The obvious solution is to cha= nge the rules so there can be 210 million coins and 10x everyones UTXOs at = some pre-agreed flag day. We probably wouldn't phrase it like that, it&= #39;s easier for people to imagine what's happening if it's phrased= as "adding more places after the decimal point" or something, bu= t at the protocol level coins are represented using integers, so it'd h= ave to be implemented as a multiply.

Would this be a violation of the social contract? A vio= lation of all that is sacred? I don't think so, it'd just be sensib= le engineering and there'd be strong consensus for that exactly because= 21 million is=C2=A0so arbitrary. If all balances and prices multipl= y 100-fold overnight, no wealth is reallocated which would be the actual= =C2=A0violation of the social contract:=C2=A0we just get more resolutio= n for setting prices.

So. The thing that protects your money from confiscatio= n is not=C2=A0proof of work. PoW is just a database synchronisation mechani= sm. The thing that protects your money from confiscation is a strong group = consensus that theft is bad. But that's a social rule, not a mathematic= al rule.
--089e015388484a2c3604f7df9d3b--