From: Eric Voskuil <eric@voskuil.org>
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Mime-Version: 1.0 (1.0)
Date: Sun, 29 Jan 2017 11:37:07 -0800
Message-Id: <4C206BDC-CCAB-4F4B-9356-6FA7652E467A@voskuil.org>
References: <201701270107.01092.luke@dashjr.org> <20170127212810.GA5856@nex>
	<CAAy62_KUSNTjivwJT87K9f1c=k-6gdaLXEBJjcy2KK+uLSTWDA@mail.gmail.com>
	<201701280403.05558.luke@dashjr.org>
	<CAAt2M183=L=9N3HKVgGbsFbug4LWkGfMQzzcDQu9xxMJL+L1oA@mail.gmail.com>
	<A6A9E83E-6A5A-4583-A4E3-A52DF33DCF4F@petertodd.org>
	<583ef2d2-8315-da9f-7815-768cb4ccb515@thinlink.com>
In-Reply-To: <583ef2d2-8315-da9f-7815-768cb4ccb515@thinlink.com>
To: Tom Harding <tomh@thinlink.com>,
	Bitcoin Protocol Discussion <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Three hardfork-related BIPs
Precedence: list


> On Jan 29, 2017, at 11:15 AM, Tom Harding via bitcoin-dev <bitcoin-dev@lis=
ts.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
>=20
>> On 1/28/2017 10:29 AM, Peter Todd via bitcoin-dev wrote:
>> a world of nodes in large datacenters is a world where it's very easy
>> to force the few Bitcoin nodes remaining to follow AML/KYC rules
>=20
> If that's true, why haven't we already seen AML/KYC required of mining
> pools?  That would be comparatively trivial.

It is true, there is no question. The fact that an attack does not appear to=
 have occurred does not mean that the vulnerability exists. It is as you say=
 a trivial exploit, which means it will happen when the economic incentive i=
s great enough. Analogous attacks on other points of centralization are alre=
ady well underway.

e=