Received: from sog-mx-1.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.191] helo=mx.sourceforge.net) by sfs-ml-4.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76) (envelope-from ) id 1Ujxnc-0005qd-4o for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Tue, 04 Jun 2013 20:25:44 +0000 Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-1.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of petertodd.org designates 62.13.148.161 as permitted sender) client-ip=62.13.148.161; envelope-from=pete@petertodd.org; helo=outmail148161.authsmtp.com; Received: from outmail148161.authsmtp.com ([62.13.148.161]) by sog-mx-1.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76) id 1Ujxna-0000dp-VB for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Tue, 04 Jun 2013 20:25:44 +0000 Received: from mail-c233.authsmtp.com (mail-c233.authsmtp.com [62.13.128.233]) by punt6.authsmtp.com (8.14.2/8.14.2/Kp) with ESMTP id r54KPMQT081170; Tue, 4 Jun 2013 21:25:22 +0100 (BST) Received: from petertodd.org (petertodd.org [174.129.28.249]) (authenticated bits=128) by mail.authsmtp.com (8.14.2/8.14.2/) with ESMTP id r54KPIfc004838 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO); Tue, 4 Jun 2013 21:25:20 +0100 (BST) Date: Tue, 4 Jun 2013 16:25:18 -0400 From: Peter Todd To: Jeff Garzik Message-ID: <20130604202518.GA24069@petertodd.org> References: <20130601193036.GA13873@savin> <20130602214553.GA11528@netbook.cypherspace.org> <20130604183652.GI45035@giles.gnomon.org.uk> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="PEIAKu/WMn1b1Hv9" Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) X-Server-Quench: e139a147-cd54-11e2-a49c-0025907707a1 X-AuthReport-Spam: If SPAM / abuse - report it at: http://www.authsmtp.com/abuse X-AuthRoute: OCd2Yg0TA1ZNQRgX IjsJECJaVQIpKltL GxAVKBZePFsRUQkR aQdMdgYUEkAaAgsB AmUbWVVeUlh7W2I7 ag1VcwRfa1RMVxto VEFWR1pVCwQmQxkF fX5nBEpydwFOe3Y+ ZERnX3IVCUV5fBd8 RklJRjkDYXphaTUd TRFcflBJcANIexZF bVd/UyIMLwdSbGoL NQ4vNDcwO3BTJTpY RgYVKF8UXXNDJiQ7 XxcZFDF9VVYCSTl2 IRs8KRYAGw4UO0Y/ UxMoX0MfNRJXAQRY WlpVDSlVb14cWzI2 ERgSQEgFCDBbTS5W BhBgLBhSSmUKAmJS AExOSApn X-Authentic-SMTP: 61633532353630.1021:706 X-AuthFastPath: 0 (Was 255) X-AuthSMTP-Origin: 174.129.28.249/587 X-AuthVirus-Status: No virus detected - but ensure you scan with your own anti-virus system. X-Spam-Score: -1.5 (-) 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 SPF_PASS SPF: sender matches SPF record X-Headers-End: 1Ujxna-0000dp-VB Cc: Bitcoin-Dev Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] Proposal: soft-fork to make anyone-can-spend outputs unspendable for 100 blocks 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: Tue, 04 Jun 2013 20:25:44 -0000 --PEIAKu/WMn1b1Hv9 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Tue, Jun 04, 2013 at 02:49:54PM -0400, Jeff Garzik wrote: > On Tue, Jun 4, 2013 at 2:36 PM, Roy Badami wrote: > >> Sure they are paying themselves, but given bitcoin network > >> difficulty is uso high, simply obtaining payments-go-myself-as-miner > >> transactions is itself difficult. > > > > Not for pool operators it isn't. Nor for people buying hashing power > > from a GPUMAX-type service, if such services still exist (or should > > they exist again in future). >=20 > Re-read what I wrote. That's perfectly OK. It is analogous to a pool > operator receiving merged mined coins, each time they mine a bitcoin > block. >=20 > If you achieve the very high difficulty needed to create a valid > bitcoin block, you have achieved a very high bar. "High" is relative. I could make a 100BTC apparently sacrifice via fees by just waiting a month or two for my mining hardware to find a block that had a pre-prepared fake sacrifice. It'd cost me roughly 1BTC when you take orphans into account. Similarly I could hack into a pool and have them do it on my behalf, or a pool could just offer the service for a fee. I already worry enough that announce-commit sacrifices to mining fees aren't secure enough given the potential of a few large pools teaming up to create them cheaply, let alone what you're talking about... Hey Luke: so what's the going rate to get Eligius to mine a fake mining fee sacrifice? Can I get a discount on repeat orders? :) --=20 'peter'[:-1]@petertodd.org 000000000000014c5bfacfca559fd6a9519dcd338f9fca6590eda7d156120013 --PEIAKu/WMn1b1Hv9 Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" Content-Description: Digital signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux) iEYEARECAAYFAlGuTS4ACgkQpEFN739thoylAgCeIWLQ2MAYwlkmFwuAcxUuvg+f gGEAni6dRy1y+QcPnkLqZf/ZmPXUY/fF =H0k6 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --PEIAKu/WMn1b1Hv9--