Return-Path: Received: from smtp1.osuosl.org (smtp1.osuosl.org [140.211.166.138]) by lists.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9737BC002D for ; Thu, 20 Oct 2022 22:28:19 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by smtp1.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6AE2E843BC for ; Thu, 20 Oct 2022 22:28:19 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 smtp1.osuosl.org 6AE2E843BC Authentication-Results: smtp1.osuosl.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key, unprotected) header.d=messagingengine.com header.i=@messagingengine.com header.a=rsa-sha256 header.s=fm3 header.b=nuzdxoqJ X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at osuosl.org X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.602 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.602 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Received: from smtp1.osuosl.org ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (smtp1.osuosl.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 1-SC-EX5Qddg for ; Thu, 20 Oct 2022 22:28:18 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: domain auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.8.0 DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 smtp1.osuosl.org 723BE8439E Received: from out5-smtp.messagingengine.com (out5-smtp.messagingengine.com [66.111.4.29]) by smtp1.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 723BE8439E for ; Thu, 20 Oct 2022 22:28:18 +0000 (UTC) Received: from compute2.internal (compute2.nyi.internal [10.202.2.46]) by mailout.nyi.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id AB4165C0097; Thu, 20 Oct 2022 18:28:17 -0400 (EDT) Received: from mailfrontend2 ([10.202.2.163]) by compute2.internal (MEProxy); Thu, 20 Oct 2022 18:28:17 -0400 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d= messagingengine.com; h=cc:content-type:date:date:feedback-id :feedback-id:from:from:in-reply-to:in-reply-to:message-id :mime-version:references:reply-to:sender:subject:subject:to:to :x-me-proxy:x-me-proxy:x-me-sender:x-me-sender:x-sasl-enc; s= fm3; t=1666304897; x=1666391297; bh=nhf9/lHNGiaOIbrX3f5oYdMwBiVe gOi+1jNeICBPaKI=; b=nuzdxoqJU7sbYs+2Sfvfu+gxkMWYp9iVtavzMQfn2Qz/ w8ZW97TxniO/oerioPS0louBvdILJzr4tR1P0yJcJ6cx1tB4UeLQZ2wbs4x5d5+j SFEI29heegrt1m4g+zYKuPjyuyThm8fsp0BakaImervZqhPOq0XJcicCXL+Jzuup rBm6ho5ZzGwF4EylBPprlsL6UG/N13DjI9aLJJ5v3/lRE2aXD0TUT1sQ/NJYFVfY S8GQUYia/kJ78AC+jy+4Ch7rwSl1lthwEMRpAuQw1xbG1Ucy0TxMnCMERqOBj255 ryTsoOQhSuDMc1Vkx4T8WUo1wahOTMI31VBPL3H+Kw== X-ME-Sender: X-ME-Received: X-ME-Proxy-Cause: gggruggvucftvghtrhhoucdtuddrgedvfedrfeeljedgudduucetufdoteggodetrfdotf fvucfrrhhofhhilhgvmecuhfgrshhtofgrihhlpdfqfgfvpdfurfetoffkrfgpnffqhgen uceurghilhhouhhtmecufedttdenucesvcftvggtihhpihgvnhhtshculddquddttddmne cujfgurhepfffhvffukfhfgggtuggjsehgtderredttddvnecuhfhrohhmpefrvghtvghr ucfvohguugcuoehpvghtvgesphgvthgvrhhtohguugdrohhrgheqnecuggftrfgrthhtvg hrnhepiedvvdelieekjeeukefgtdelfeegheehleffueehteeghfelveejfeelgeevffef necuffhomhgrihhnpehpvghtvghrthhouggurdhorhhgnecuvehluhhsthgvrhfuihiivg eptdenucfrrghrrghmpehmrghilhhfrhhomhepuhhsvghrsehpvghtvghrthhouggurdho rhhg X-ME-Proxy: Feedback-ID: i525146e8:Fastmail Received: by mail.messagingengine.com (Postfix) with ESMTPA; Thu, 20 Oct 2022 18:28:17 -0400 (EDT) Received: by localhost (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 51F9A204BA; Thu, 20 Oct 2022 18:28:16 -0400 (EDT) Date: Thu, 20 Oct 2022 18:28:16 -0400 From: Peter Todd To: Jeremy Rubin , Bitcoin Protocol Discussion Message-ID: References: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha512; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="mxy5USJ1Q2UT37G3" Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Does Bitcoin require or have an honest majority or a rational one? (re rbf) X-BeenThere: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: Bitcoin Protocol Discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 20 Oct 2022 22:28:19 -0000 --mxy5USJ1Q2UT37G3 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Sun, Oct 16, 2022 at 01:35:54PM -0400, Jeremy Rubin via bitcoin-dev wrot= e: > The Bitcoin white paper says: >=20 > The proof-of-work also solves the problem of determining representation in > majority decision > making. If the majority were based on one-IP-address-one-vote, it could be > subverted by anyone > able to allocate many IPs. Proof-of-work is essentially one-CPU-one-vote. > The majority > decision is represented by the longest chain, which has the greatest > proof-of-work effort invested > in it. If a majority of CPU power is controlled by honest nodes, the hone= st > chain will grow the > fastest and outpace any competing chains. To modify a past block, an > attacker would have to > redo the proof-of-work of the block and all blocks after it and then catch > up with and surpass the > work of the honest nodes. We will show later that the probability of a > slower attacker catching up > diminishes exponentially as subsequent blocks are added. >=20 >=20 > This, Satoshi (who doesn't really matter anyways I guess?) claimed that f= or > Bitcoin to function properly you need a majority honest nodes. Satoshi also made a very fundamental mistake: the whitepaper and initial Bitcoin release chooses the *longest* chain, rather than the most work chai= n. Longest chain is totally broken. What Satoshi said in the whitepaper is completely irrelevant and quoting it= in circumstances like this is IMO misleading. Anyway, obviously we should always try to make systems that work properly w= ith an economically rational majority, rather than the much more risky honest majority. Economically rational is a better security guarantee. And whenever possible we should go even further, using the standard computationally infeasible guarantees (as seen in our EC signature schems), or even, mathematically impossible (1+1=3D2). It's notable how in ethereum land, their smart contract schemes have lead to significant effort in economically rational MEV optimization, at a signific= ant cost to decentralization (eg majority of blocks are now OFAC compliant). There's no reason why Bitcoin should be fundamentally any different in the = long run. --=20 https://petertodd.org 'peter'[:-1]@petertodd.org --mxy5USJ1Q2UT37G3 Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iQEzBAEBCgAdFiEEFcyURjhyM68BBPYTJIFAPaXwkfsFAmNRy3wACgkQJIFAPaXw kfvXGQf/dM6X36GoLtiFL2TxGiQnD0IalDDnae751icxwBIt0xU67w/aKH2jkMDs MpL7iPRWmIbl7gjB2OPmRGU28uLryuP89heaJeD6FqaHRUxEHKA/CQ4/RKAbSJYa wyfCc1Js9s6XVjjGLj47p/scd/IwIyL26wRvjW2MIsSkAnCvNEqGTkR60M6UUfYi 7jmmrnZnzBcb4mYvn3Ul3kgLiIzw2mUjjbr9pZHd7DDMjf+jUgZzfhP3oQf+Elu0 QAqULH2UQA+WH/FhoBsHeocjVjcEDCDLCXzEBqjqg2x0P6c3+z42DLFQ2eI9ZrcW uSk4+4SRh4ZdTnDDgYSt8Bg5Kk1ikQ== =F6Xn -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --mxy5USJ1Q2UT37G3--