Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-1.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of gmail.com
	designates 209.85.223.176 as permitted sender)
	client-ip=209.85.223.176; envelope-from=gacrux@gmail.com;
	helo=mail-ie0-f176.google.com; 
Message-ID: <535A60FE.10209@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 25 Apr 2014 23:19:58 +1000
From: Gareth Williams <gacrux@gmail.com>
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 <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>
References: <CANEZrP0szimdFSk23aMfO8p2Xtgfbm6kZ=x3rmdPDFUD73xHMg@mail.gmail.com>	<CAE28kUQ9WOnHuFR6WYeU6rep3b74zDweTPxffF0L6FjZObXE6A@mail.gmail.com>	<CANEZrP3WBWi5h04yyQ115vXmVHupoj5MG+-8sx=2zEcCT5a9hg@mail.gmail.com>	<CAC1+kJNE+k4kcTj3Ap0-A=PdD1=+-k5hN4431Z99A+S7M3=BoQ@mail.gmail.com>	<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>
In-Reply-To: <CANEZrP0bKe-=T5ps0myLZjo60tv2mkm3Bw0o4e-9y7zb1h5eDg@mail.gmail.com>
OpenPGP: id=378E4544
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1;
	protocol="application/pgp-signature";
	boundary="lbxH9cQ8EhJ0rR3q6pruIae9ejvAcSlm0"
Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] Coinbase reallocation to discourage
 Finney attacks
Precedence: list

This is an OpenPGP/MIME signed message (RFC 4880 and 3156)
--lbxH9cQ8EhJ0rR3q6pruIae9ejvAcSlm0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable


On 25/04/14 20:17, Mike Hearn wrote:
>     Proving that you can convince the economic majority that the
>=20
>     interpretation of existing blocks is in any way up for grabs would =
set a
>     dangerous precedent, and shake some people's faith in Bitcoin's ove=
rall
>     robustness and security (well, mine anyway.)
>=20
>=20
> Hmm, then I think your faith needs to be shaken. Bitcoin  is money, and=

> money is a purely artificial social construct. The interpretation of
> what a bitcoin means, or what a dollar means, has always been and alway=
s
> will be a human decision taken in order to achieve some socially useful=

> goal.=20

My argument does not concern what a bitcoin means, just what data in the
blockchain means. People are free to value an individual bitcoin however
they like. But it's useful if we all agree on a standard that defines
who owns them - ie. the protocol as described in Satoshi's whitepaper. I
recognise that your ability to provide a valid scriptSig for /any
existing UTXO in the blockchain/ as proof of your ownership of the
corresponding bitcoin. You want to pick and choose which UTXO (well,
coinbase; same diff) you consider valid and spendable /after they've
become part of the blockchain/, regardless of the fact they're buried
under PoW.

As an illustration, consider Counterparty - an altcoin whose TXns are
embedded as unvalidated data in the bitcoin blockchain. A lot of people
imagine that an XCP transaction buried under 100 blocks and a BTC
transaction buried under the same 100 blocks are equally secure. You
tell me: are they? It's the same PoW chain after all.

Hell no they're not! The way Counterparty interprets that data in the
blockchain is anything but stable or well documented. On more than one
occasion they've gone "whoops, found a bug that caused some transactions
to occur that we don't consider valid - we'll just fix that." A suddenly
the reference client doesn't consider the XCP in your wallet valid
anymore - they just magically disappear - because the parent of the TXn
that paid you was actually invalid. Nobody rewrote history via PoW; they
simply tweaked their interpretation of the existing history.

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.


--lbxH9cQ8EhJ0rR3q6pruIae9ejvAcSlm0
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/

iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJTWmD+AAoJEEY5w2E3jkVEWVUH/1kgJ4cWzknDjgE8/1RlTZo+
HTp0NbVjqtPC54rjKCbcOPa4TQ67Wd5wKphNQRX1aCHWDvks0BeeF3iQvH7aUUG7
mYr0FOntRp1aYLFq8oKqEcW5VsjDR4rjO+FOhreBw8iCrlVUOXra2lkMZaChFq89
7G79tlHzBVjTUXxj/xqYpd01crk3XD2UN/r27oMKMeqmwpX7yVT3MVs5tRDUpCHx
RPBrBnGhcOnzexDQIbENMAqb7Bb2nxKUBlAITNyF9AxddlCe7Pa4v9+KOXu2FztI
j1gYojIEKhntGXx0QBvTNk6JeMFBoXeGx+WJoVyCYZBO+hC7/qkzcftApbXGBXE=
=iiXD
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--lbxH9cQ8EhJ0rR3q6pruIae9ejvAcSlm0--