Received: from sog-mx-1.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.191] helo=mx.sourceforge.net) by sfs-ml-3.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76) (envelope-from ) id 1WfVBw-0006QY-Ue for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Wed, 30 Apr 2014 14:08:57 +0000 Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-1.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of gmail.com designates 209.85.223.178 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.85.223.178; envelope-from=gacrux@gmail.com; helo=mail-ie0-f178.google.com; Received: from mail-ie0-f178.google.com ([209.85.223.178]) by sog-mx-1.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128) (Exim 4.76) id 1WfVBw-0000t6-18 for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Wed, 30 Apr 2014 14:08:56 +0000 Received: by mail-ie0-f178.google.com with SMTP id lx4so2008684iec.37 for ; Wed, 30 Apr 2014 07:08:50 -0700 (PDT) X-Received: by 10.50.1.5 with SMTP id 5mr38373017igi.13.1398866929829; Wed, 30 Apr 2014 07:08:49 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [192.168.1.150] (60-240-212-53.tpgi.com.au. [60.240.212.53]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id sb11sm6183488igb.0.2014.04.30.07.08.48 for (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Wed, 30 Apr 2014 07:08:48 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <536103E9.5060706@gmail.com> Date: Thu, 01 May 2014 00:08:41 +1000 From: Gareth Williams User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.4.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bitcoin Dev References: <5359E509.4080907@gmail.com> <535A60FE.10209@gmail.com> <535BA357.6050607@gmail.com> <535CFDB4.1000200@gmail.com> <20140428214102.GA8347@netbook.cypherspace.org> In-Reply-To: X-Enigmail-Version: 1.6 OpenPGP: id=378E4544 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="MrG6esA1Ki1WWUbidG0e99OAgkHXChEhn" X-Spam-Score: -1.6 (-) 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 (gacrux[at]gmail.com) -0.0 SPF_PASS SPF: sender matches SPF record -0.1 DKIM_VALID_AU Message has a valid DKIM or DK signature from author's domain 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: 1WfVBw-0000t6-18 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: Wed, 30 Apr 2014 14:08:57 -0000 This is an OpenPGP/MIME signed message (RFC 4880 and 3156) --MrG6esA1Ki1WWUbidG0e99OAgkHXChEhn Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On 30/04/14 00:13, Mike Hearn wrote: > Every time miners and nodes ignore a block that creates >formula() coin= s > that's a majority vote on a controversial political matter Actually, there's one more thing I'd like to add. Apologies to the list, but it bears repeating: * rejecting a block at validation Is /very different/ from: * reinterpreting a block that has already passed validation Nodes ignoring a block that creates >formula() coins is rejection at block *validation*. That's the protocol working as it is supposed to. It's deliberately an all-or-nothing mechanism; you can't pick and choose which blocks you like. If 51% of the network say your block is invalid, they're now on a different fork. The consequences are this drastic on purpose, for stability. Nodes reinterpreting a block that has already passed validation is almost the polar opposite of this. They're /ignoring the protocol/ and making up their own meaning for stuff. Sidestepping the mechanism in the paragraph above. I would hope it'd be self evident that this is dangerous= =2E Adam Back is arguing practicality in this thread. I'm arguing fundamental principle. (And, er, someone else is randomly throwing around ad hominems, which we'll politely ignore; Mike could work for Lucifer himself and his good ideas would still be good, and his bad ideas would still be bad, so let's just stick to the ideas eh.) So, fundamental principle: don't reinterpret history! We have validation for a very good reason. Undermine it and you might as well have an unvalidated system like Counterparty, which I wouldn't ever trust with more than the value of a small hamburger. If the economic majority starts reinterpreting history (through whatever voting mechanism / side-channel you like) that completely undermines Bitcoin's validation, and its PoW. It's worse than 51% of miners deciding to rewrite history. --MrG6esA1Ki1WWUbidG0e99OAgkHXChEhn Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" Content-Description: OpenPGP digital signature Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="signature.asc" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/ iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJTYQPpAAoJEEY5w2E3jkVEVlwH+QHq+GHoIfTnXuOyFDPGqjbA MOaJ5tIkudbDKxDR3N9EzZF8l75OJBlfZsUlf3UQMY+wzRGVkptdphEe7Q8hqyuj 2jvhcSUI+cbf5n+HMMrtOggNTY1U08i0SZcY0ZtlIbO3qBwTXjRjHfCyTzPhDoGW fYOIR/n27vEOme+h6vKir+oRB/YYULxXdytzLkQeZ1m2eB2dfRUKlf/snXt7iASg rT4ALMiOzw3ZdjSpy8dueZL0VPoAariWUWHrmdibD0a+NY8L5pasw21/Wl7o7gB0 lHtVaFk5e4jb6W0FaiIjDz5IXJkEiBUCv4vbEkNEboOQuuN5VpV7+JrZt50n+/U= =PsVo -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --MrG6esA1Ki1WWUbidG0e99OAgkHXChEhn--