Return-Path: Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org [172.17.192.35]) by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6CBC697A for ; Tue, 11 Jul 2017 23:12:06 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from homiemail-a3.g.dreamhost.com (homie.mail.dreamhost.com [208.97.132.208]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8E9A0108 for ; Tue, 11 Jul 2017 23:12:05 +0000 (UTC) Received: from homiemail-a3.g.dreamhost.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by homiemail-a3.g.dreamhost.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 136BB284078; Tue, 11 Jul 2017 16:12:05 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed; d=taoeffect.com; h= content-type:mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :message-id:references:to; s=taoeffect.com; bh=ALlVD6PulJcHSuwrE d8yYEMXt58=; b=qcmQTUIDHP3/85mt8AtrJ/gzfYYEnVraAF7a0i3oxtllWnrYM esEC/f2COOmE7WRkDFzylWD1L0j/vGzTyln/HlGahfebZ7gbJQc7Mr46qkRN5KIc RTcMDeVclwMQsK3tLod1CU+nwbvbGUvP1I0rZn/TIguexVDuDyzgQ90eVg= Received: from [192.168.42.67] (184-23-252-118.fiber.dynamic.sonic.net [184.23.252.118]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: contact@taoeffect.com) by homiemail-a3.g.dreamhost.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 8D2C328406C; Tue, 11 Jul 2017 16:12:04 -0700 (PDT) Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_332ADC45-849C-40D5-AC95-8413D179C5D5"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg=pgp-sha512 Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 10.3 \(3273\)) From: Tao Effect In-Reply-To: <08078429-089f-9315-2f76-a08121c5378c@gmail.com> Date: Tue, 11 Jul 2017 16:12:03 -0700 X-Mao-Original-Outgoing-Id: 521507523.32341-9956bb043c94455e05ead577f0886c0d Message-Id: References: <0119661e-a11a-6d4b-c9ec-fd510bd4f144@gmail.com> <1c1d06a9-2e9f-5b2d-42b7-d908ada4b09e@gmail.com> <08078429-089f-9315-2f76-a08121c5378c@gmail.com> To: Paul Sztorc X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3273) X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.0 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID, DKIM_VALID_AU, HTML_MESSAGE, 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: Wed, 12 Jul 2017 03:48:40 +0000 Cc: Bitcoin Protocol Discussion Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Updating the Scaling Roadmap 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, 11 Jul 2017 23:12:06 -0000 --Apple-Mail=_332ADC45-849C-40D5-AC95-8413D179C5D5 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail=_046A9F10-1EF7-4F5F-BAF0-E5FEF1B8EBAA" --Apple-Mail=_046A9F10-1EF7-4F5F-BAF0-E5FEF1B8EBAA Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Paul, There is a difference between replying to an email, and addressing the = issues that were brought up in it. I did read your reply, and I chose not to respond to it because it did = not address anything I said. Here's an example: > It would not be accurate to say that miners have "total" control. = Miners > do control the destination of withdrawals, but they do not control the > withdrawal-duration nor the withdrawal-frequency. >=20 > So, if miners wish to 'steal' from a sidechain, they _can_ initiate a > theft, but they can not change the fact that their malfeasance will be > [a] obvious, and [b] on display for a long period of time. Here, you admit that the security of the sidechains allows miners to = steal bitcoins, something they cannot do currently. You next tried to equate three different types of theft, what you called = "Classic Theft", "Channel Theft", and "Drivechain Theft", saying: > I do not think that any of the three stands out as being categorically > worse than the others To anyone who understands bitcoin, there is a very clear, unmistakeable = difference between double-spending ("Classic Theft"), and *ownership* of = the private key controlling the bitcoins. Similarly, to anyone who understands bitcoin, there is also a very = clear, unmistakeable difference between censorship ("Channel Theft"), = and *ownership* of the private key controlling the bitcoins. The entire email was a very long-form way of admitting to all of the = issues that were raised in the previous email, while making it sound = like you had addressed the issues. I am not sure how else to respond to that email, given that none of the = issues were really addressed. Drivechain is an unmistakeable weakening of Bitcoin's security = guarantees. This you have not denied. There is no reason to weaken Bitcoin's security in such a dramatic = fashion. Better options are being worked on, they just take time. Kind regards, Greg Slepak -- Please do not email me anything that you are not comfortable also = sharing with the NSA. > On Jul 11, 2017, at 3:57 PM, Paul Sztorc > wrote: >=20 > On 7/11/2017 6:41 PM, Tao Effect wrote: >> Dear Paul, >>=20 >> Drivechain has several issues that you've acknowledged but have not, >> IMO, adequately (at all really) addressed [1]. >=20 > I replied to your email at length, at [2]. You should read that email, > and then reply to it with your outstanding objections, if you still = have > them (per the usual customs of a mailing list). >=20 > [2] > = https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2017-June/014609.h= tml = >=20 >> Adopting DC would be an irreversible course of action, >=20 > This is false -- it is easily reversible with a second soft fork. >=20 > Also, I would say to everyone that, (in my opinion as the OP) this > conversation will go off-topic if it veers exclusively into = 'drivechain > review'. >=20 > Paul >=20 >=20 >=20 --Apple-Mail=_046A9F10-1EF7-4F5F-BAF0-E5FEF1B8EBAA Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii Paul,

There= is a difference between replying to an email, and addressing the issues = that were brought up in it.

I did read your reply, and I chose not to respond to it = because it did not address anything I said.

Here's an example:

It = would not be accurate to say that miners have "total" control. Miners
do control the destination of withdrawals, but they do not = control the
withdrawal-duration nor the = withdrawal-frequency.

So, if miners wish to = 'steal' from a sidechain, they _can_ initiate a
theft, but = they can not change the fact that their malfeasance will be
[a] obvious, and [b] on = display for a long period of time.

Here, you admit = that the security of the sidechains allows miners to steal bitcoins, = something they cannot do currently.

You next tried to equate three = different types of theft, what you called "Classic Theft", "Channel = Theft", and "Drivechain Theft", saying:

I do not think that any of the three stands = out as being categorically
worse than the = others

To anyone who = understands bitcoin, there is a very clear, unmistakeable difference = between double-spending ("Classic Theft"), and *ownership* of the = private key controlling the bitcoins.

Similarly, to anyone who understands = bitcoin, there is also a very clear, unmistakeable difference between = censorship ("Channel Theft"), and *ownership* of the private key = controlling the bitcoins.

The entire email was a very long-form way of admitting to all = of the issues that were raised in the previous email, while making it = sound like you had addressed the issues.

I am not sure how else to respond to = that email, given that none of the issues were really = addressed.

Drivechain is an unmistakeable weakening of Bitcoin's = security guarantees. This you have not denied.

There is no reason to weaken Bitcoin's = security in such a dramatic fashion. Better options are being worked on, = they just take time.

Kind regards,
Greg Slepak

--
Please do not email me anything that you are not = comfortable also sharing with the NSA.

On Jul 11, 2017, at 3:57 PM, Paul Sztorc <truthcoin@gmail.com>= wrote:

On 7/11/2017 6:41 PM, Tao Effect wrote:
Dear Paul,

Drivechain has several issues that you've = acknowledged but have not,
IMO, adequately (at all really) = addressed [1].

I replied to = your email at length, at [2]. You should read that email,
and then reply to it with your outstanding objections, if you = still have
them (per the usual customs of a mailing = list).

[2]
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2017-Ju= ne/014609.html

Adopting DC would be an irreversible course of action,

This is false -- it is easily = reversible with a second soft fork.

Also, I = would say to everyone that, (in my opinion as the OP) this
conversation will go off-topic if it veers exclusively into = 'drivechain
review'.

Paul




= --Apple-Mail=_046A9F10-1EF7-4F5F-BAF0-E5FEF1B8EBAA-- --Apple-Mail=_332ADC45-849C-40D5-AC95-8413D179C5D5 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: attachment; filename=signature.asc Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name=signature.asc Content-Description: Message signed with OpenPGP -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iQIcBAEBCgAGBQJZZVtDAAoJEOxnICvpCVJHSqUP/RRoeMyNNDafAhHIVPMuX9ZA ouAtqujOcrJQQsR4lyA3y2QFISUp/5Hvbptnh64Y2hIBSFLgzkgfJo6d/z0+Y9kD 8Vj1R9Cl7TZEixdRbo9JMTPIiUGjhnFuut/ln2+TN1nDIPqw1QEZ8KtJpPKvbi8g TgKPc3N5P5OTomZYIvlzJBx9lS+x6U7cHd0/16cbuwLXRsfV1Zkt86MgK4frE3zk Vj/wpy+bhy2iyLlRCjIF7iIU5bRpS1usHxQ4Vpye7S49DFUP5rvlBHwESxVlyG4t 34q510y1YmVZgAneGoc4JxM1gmZkHisxQyrJST+bFUhRgjMxSyijQS6iigkzxowU wWZdJ3WBbkZAFgWstFooPqspDqHDczkEQfbt80iERkm+CGSox8y0trWclTv6IaL4 RwppLJtG5plBOFYC1+HveySyIHrmFC8f9CyhyjQ3fwo9KA58orVabCiyMSosabpk OpEAON3CDAfRtIhZuazScJvjEH1FMv4ozMD9xf540A6h1GXqp3a0aVsW/ZRlOSRc CkZJcg/FXfQy1eHg3yL4QRmoogp+DhIxbGwJVEA1KYTyIDvxBRhvePE21FjlukIW asvhrg0MRvqE8qv/YQQ0ZLVcwe6rtFdKAkjrzgXlOd87TBjcj97LA4k3tqqN6W/N PzHgzb0N6y8vQwSMDTfr =704E -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --Apple-Mail=_332ADC45-849C-40D5-AC95-8413D179C5D5--