Return-Path: Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org [172.17.192.35]) by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id CAFC778D for ; Tue, 26 Jul 2016 20:58:03 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from mail-yw0-f175.google.com (mail-yw0-f175.google.com [209.85.161.175]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D12D719E for ; Tue, 26 Jul 2016 20:58:02 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-yw0-f175.google.com with SMTP id z8so33271020ywa.1 for ; Tue, 26 Jul 2016 13:58:02 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=mevs-nl.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=mime-version:from:date:message-id:subject:to; bh=R4IboAkaWujhRsedDsu2YA5RJIBKxW9M3KZv3oHAojk=; b=druUv55A1lHMjeX8S7MFIesBUS/RR5SdynAwYs9/NXhi7fpKR/W3v209pMwuZ3hogj OApL5AoC0YtZKfvUM6+nP4fWhuuW++7YDyu+E/dNHLqcXWMEbHNiDBfrNdVVShWR0KUg uYbbtSqAJo4rT3hJb2mXDjnTnmR4H7liAb+HcAxhKijaMSfEemUFLkhYcn12iELRKAYy to05oUF+KNmO9Sgk+NE4LbwZ2/YWlhnFD+Mvc9y6ksu7eCIvzzZ9pCtLchfr9fuX25En FdzxS1SUTXtElLaeuqixtL3bA4NunZBGpKCnqVpFIXzLAFwTuKfvgK5gw5oZc/ch2KvI Yjzw== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:from:date:message-id:subject:to; bh=R4IboAkaWujhRsedDsu2YA5RJIBKxW9M3KZv3oHAojk=; b=bhbvJ1KOVrgvuySslNbwxybSZzQ93Z3QNA+YrA/bAH3tZbwuDHED+Ug+AEPCjsYUnc Gi2yAsHFy2PD8umkUcMPU/BIICTwaCGXqSRZbNYYZizRecH4TAg8vjX+FnwDmoaEXnIC tghwflis5aMXrGZHrvwvQU7eisoDhZqHj0s5qW5n8Mh96/qUtN6iVqAnWSR1AHuk9NoX Zs6LJ3XphVychkQUo28qX7T5qCO6WBkw+wHvql5UMEUOtlxBuKIchJw56Q42rPx6RCvY B98ok/OqeQzn/L34MeaNBArkF1C88Zh36Cnif7IDhBd2Skiq9ndyGhIXLc7Bx5ze8ae/ g+nw== X-Gm-Message-State: AEkoouv3xxw4Z2bLv8taIIl6p8ogqGuVrFMzn1ala5FGFLDFmYClZzId/QQFxiqlLIRtaKzgUDotncFurDHGyg== X-Received: by 10.176.0.180 with SMTP id 49mr9824016uaj.107.1469566681439; Tue, 26 Jul 2016 13:58:01 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.103.112.71 with HTTP; Tue, 26 Jul 2016 13:58:00 -0700 (PDT) From: Martijn Meijering Date: Tue, 26 Jul 2016 22:58:00 +0200 Message-ID: To: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE autolearn=ham version=3.3.1 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on smtp1.linux-foundation.org X-Mailman-Approved-At: Tue, 26 Jul 2016 21:10:58 +0000 Subject: [bitcoin-dev] Reasons to add sync flags to Bitcoin X-BeenThere: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Bitcoin Protocol Discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 26 Jul 2016 20:58:03 -0000 - Flags will be mined selfishly, and not published until the advantage gained from withholding is less than the mining reward. This effect may kill the decentralization features, since big miners will be the only ones that can selfish-mine flags. Indeed, collusion would be encouraged... just ship the flag to the miners you do business with, and no one else. At the expense of loss of flag revenue, your in-group would gain a massive advantage in main-chain mining. --- Is there a reason miners would be more likely to engage in selfish mining of sync flags than they are now with ordinary blocks?