1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
184
185
186
187
188
189
190
191
192
193
194
195
196
197
198
199
200
201
202
203
204
205
206
207
208
209
210
211
212
213
214
215
216
217
218
219
220
221
222
223
224
225
226
227
228
229
230
231
232
233
234
235
236
237
238
239
240
241
242
243
244
245
246
247
248
249
250
251
252
253
254
255
256
257
258
259
260
261
262
263
264
265
266
267
268
269
270
271
272
273
274
275
276
277
278
279
280
281
282
283
284
285
286
287
288
289
290
291
292
293
294
295
296
297
298
299
300
301
302
303
304
305
306
307
308
309
310
311
312
313
314
315
316
317
318
319
320
321
322
323
324
325
326
327
328
329
330
331
332
333
334
335
336
337
338
339
340
341
342
343
344
345
346
347
348
349
350
351
352
353
354
355
356
357
358
359
360
361
362
363
|
Return-Path: <andrewlecody@gmail.com>
Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org
[172.17.192.35])
by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 663B674
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Sun, 16 Aug 2015 23:22:56 +0000 (UTC)
X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6
Received: from mail-oi0-f49.google.com (mail-oi0-f49.google.com
[209.85.218.49])
by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 91A7C159
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Sun, 16 Aug 2015 23:22:55 +0000 (UTC)
Received: by oiew67 with SMTP id w67so52144766oie.2
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Sun, 16 Aug 2015 16:22:55 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113;
h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to
:content-type; bh=dGoPGqOMBYtwv4We0vlRP2iBUd/AuCEQn+x0WHpAOAY=;
b=eg9slKKaNVXrlJ1pfXMDY7UqUhdqxLJxM0mnQ2GsXJ6h58o1uzdq9cTacP3rgnDfxM
9R1I/CNzvVOt3KzB+ZrjofnEA0tyqS4I0CAdsfOlHmGapV9VZtjU63WZoUQjqtSF1nKE
kQO2ieoS7kTkWQ1WyMBvDMdUJJGCFinU2HMIusnSZrp9xE0+UU2HTjB4eYEQP4KOVEJ8
NQXLexO/+Z4e5aYqmNlym3T4DfTBF2hko8VM9k1tyneqtVxryXe9HVLBOOUmmPVQdp84
HdNIdESN1WQCLCVXt2lNGD/3fYvBT2GWosLARPC7NF1htD0Nge5PhjvHMj6nnrqS/wIS
Kewg==
X-Received: by 10.202.226.17 with SMTP id z17mr15614775oig.16.1439767374946;
Sun, 16 Aug 2015 16:22:54 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <CADWuND3EfO6YO3g4H09_mWhrHC4PX4SZpTTuETiX2PyCxSRCsQ@mail.gmail.com>
<55D1167B.1060107@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <55D1167B.1060107@gmail.com>
From: Andrew LeCody <andrewlecody@gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 16 Aug 2015 23:22:45 +0000
Message-ID: <CAEX2NSfaPv0g07hfT31voGWX05Z6uaBsZOjhMkOwBr4mdHbPQw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Cameron Garnham <da2ce7@gmail.com>, bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a1141b454f16a64051d75f63c
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.7 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED,
DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,FREEMAIL_FROM,HTML_MESSAGE,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW
autolearn=ham version=3.3.1
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on
smtp1.linux-foundation.org
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Bitcoin XT 0.11A
X-BeenThere: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Bitcoin Development Discussion <bitcoin-dev.lists.linuxfoundation.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/options/bitcoin-dev>,
<mailto:bitcoin-dev-request@lists.linuxfoundation.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/>
List-Post: <mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
List-Help: <mailto:bitcoin-dev-request@lists.linuxfoundation.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev>,
<mailto:bitcoin-dev-request@lists.linuxfoundation.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 16 Aug 2015 23:22:56 -0000
--001a1141b454f16a64051d75f63c
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Cam, your scenario makes no sense.
> 1. Spoil the ballot. Have Bitcoin Core propagate the Bitcoin XT version
string.
> 2. Encourage all miners to false vote for the Bitcoin XT fork.
This would obliterate any confidence in Bitcoin Core. I seriously doubt
anyone would actually be ok with a pull request implementing this.
> 3. Setup good Atomic Swap markets.
Who would bother writing this code, let alone trading on these markets?
> 4. Setup a fork of Bitcoin XT that allows people to easily make a
transaction only on the XT fork (while leaving the original BTC coins
untouched).
I doubt this is even possible.
On Sun, Aug 16, 2015 at 6:02 PM Cameron Garnham via bitcoin-dev <
bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
> I think that it is important to note that Bitcoin XT faces a natural
> uphill battle.
>
> Since it is possible to setup atomic inter-fork coin trades. I do not
> see how Bitcoin XT could possibly win if Satoshi decides to sell 10000
> XTBTC for BTC everyday for the first 100 days after the fork.
>
> In many ways Satoshi gets to decide the winning fork just by his huge
> economic investment in Bitcoin.
>
>
> Here is some simple game-theory for non-consensus forks:
>
> 1. Spoil the ballot. Have Bitcoin Core propagate the Bitcoin XT version
> string.
>
> 2. Encourage all miners to false vote for the Bitcoin XT fork.
>
> - Now people have no-idea what % of the economy Bitcoin XT holds. -
> Making it impossible for people to put economic faith behind Bitcoin XT.
>
> 3. Setup good Atomic Swap markets.
>
> 4. Setup a fork of Bitcoin XT that allows people to easily make a
> transaction only on the XT fork (while leaving the original BTC coins
> untouched).
>
>
> This means that the Bitcoin XT fork will be born per-mature. Probably
> with only a small % of hashing power behind it (contrary to the almost
> 100% that falsely claim to support it). It will be embarrassing that for
> the goal of larger blocks, XT instead has blocks (before re-adjustment)
> every 2h.
>
>
> The price for XTBTC coins will plummet, Satoshi progressively dumping
> his 1M stash over a year or so will make sure that it doesn't recover
> either.
>
>
> I cannot see how Bitcoin XT is but-not in a extremely weak position from
> game theory.
>
> I'm sure smarter people than I could come up with even more ways to
> disrupt non-consensus forks.
>
> Cam.
>
>
>
> On 16/8/2015 6:39 AM, muyuubyou via bitcoin-dev wrote:
> > I posted this to /r/BitcoinMarkets but I thought I might post it here a=
s
> > well.
> >
> > ---
> > Currently 0 mined blocks have voted for XT.
> >
> > If it ever gets close to even 50%, many things can happen that would
> > reshape the game completely.
> >
> > For instance:
> >
> > - Core could start boycotting XT by not relying to them and/or not
> relying
> > from them.
> >
> > - Core could appropriate the version string of XT, making it impossible
> to
> > know how much they are progressing and a losing bet to actually execute
> the
> > fork.
> >
> > This kind of node war if the factions were sizeable would make it very
> > risky to transact at all - balances in new addresses could end up
> > vanishing. Usability of the system would plummet.
> >
> > Note that any disagreement between the network and the biggest economic
> > actors - mainly the exchanges at this point, "wallet services" maybe -
> > would mean BTC plummets. Hard. And so would confidence.
> >
> > It's a risky game to play.
> > ---
> >
> > PS: I consider this attempt at takeover about as foul as it gets. The
> > equivalent of repeating a referendum until a yes is obtained: the
> > reasonable reaction to this is actively blocking said "referendum". The=
re
> > was a fair play alternative which is voting through coinbase scriptSig
> like
> > plain 8MBers are doing, or like BIP 100 proposes for dynamic adjustment=
.
> > Once a majority is obtained in this way, devs have to react or if they
> > don't then this sort of foul play would be justified. But this wasn't t=
he
> > case.
> >
> > -----
> > =E7=82=BA=E3=81=9B=E3=81=B0=E6=88=90=E3=82=8B
> >
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > bitcoin-dev mailing list
> > bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
> > https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
> >
>
> _______________________________________________
> bitcoin-dev mailing list
> bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
>
--001a1141b454f16a64051d75f63c
Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
<div dir=3D"ltr">Cam, your scenario makes no sense.<div><br></div><div>>=
=C2=A01. Spoil the ballot. Have Bitcoin Core propagate the Bitcoin XT versi=
on</div><div>string.</div><div><span style=3D"line-height:1.5;font-size:13.=
1999998092651px">> 2. Encourage all miners to false vote for the Bitcoin=
XT fork.</span><br></div><div><span style=3D"line-height:1.5;font-size:13.=
1999998092651px"><br></span></div><div><span style=3D"font-size:13.19999980=
92651px;line-height:1.5">This would obliterate any confidence in Bitcoin Co=
re. I seriously doubt anyone would actually be ok with a pull request=C2=A0=
</span>implementing<span style=3D"font-size:13.1999998092651px;line-height:=
1.5">=C2=A0this.</span></div><div><span style=3D"font-size:13.1999998092651=
px;line-height:1.5"><br></span></div><div><span style=3D"font-size:13.19999=
98092651px;line-height:19.7999992370605px">> 3. Setup good Atomic Swap m=
arkets.</span><br style=3D"font-size:13.1999998092651px;line-height:19.7999=
992370605px"></div><div><span style=3D"font-size:13.1999998092651px;line-he=
ight:19.7999992370605px"><br></span></div><div><span style=3D"font-size:13.=
1999998092651px;line-height:19.7999992370605px">Who would bother writing th=
is code, let alone trading on these markets?</span></div><div><span style=
=3D"font-size:13.1999998092651px;line-height:19.7999992370605px"><br></span=
></div><div><span style=3D"font-size:13.1999998092651px;line-height:19.7999=
992370605px">> 4. Setup a fork of Bitcoin XT that allows people to easil=
y make a</span></div><span style=3D"font-size:13.1999998092651px;line-heigh=
t:19.7999992370605px">transaction only on the XT fork (while leaving the or=
iginal BTC coins</span><br style=3D"font-size:13.1999998092651px;line-heigh=
t:19.7999992370605px"><span style=3D"font-size:13.1999998092651px;line-heig=
ht:19.7999992370605px">untouched).</span><div><span style=3D"font-size:13.1=
999998092651px;line-height:19.7999992370605px"><br></span></div><div><span =
style=3D"font-size:13.1999998092651px;line-height:19.7999992370605px">I dou=
bt this is even possible.</span></div></div><br><div class=3D"gmail_quote">=
<div dir=3D"ltr">On Sun, Aug 16, 2015 at 6:02 PM Cameron Garnham via bitcoi=
n-dev <<a href=3D"mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org">bitcoin-=
dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org</a>> wrote:<br></div><blockquote class=3D"=
gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-=
left:1ex">I think that it is important to note that Bitcoin XT faces a natu=
ral<br>
uphill battle.<br>
<br>
Since it is possible to setup atomic inter-fork coin trades. I do not<br>
see how Bitcoin XT could possibly win if Satoshi decides to sell 10000<br>
XTBTC for BTC everyday for the first 100 days after the fork.<br>
<br>
In many ways Satoshi gets to decide the winning fork just by his huge<br>
economic investment in Bitcoin.<br>
<br>
<br>
Here is some simple game-theory for non-consensus forks:<br>
<br>
1. Spoil the ballot. Have Bitcoin Core propagate the Bitcoin XT version<br>
string.<br>
<br>
2. Encourage all miners to false vote for the Bitcoin XT fork.<br>
<br>
- Now people have no-idea what % of the economy Bitcoin XT holds. -<br>
Making it impossible for people to put economic faith behind Bitcoin XT.<br=
>
<br>
3. Setup good Atomic Swap markets.<br>
<br>
4. Setup a fork of Bitcoin XT that allows people to easily make a<br>
transaction only on the XT fork (while leaving the original BTC coins<br>
untouched).<br>
<br>
<br>
This means that the Bitcoin XT fork will be born per-mature. Probably<br>
with only a small % of hashing power behind it (contrary to the almost<br>
100% that falsely claim to support it). It will be embarrassing that for<br=
>
the goal of larger blocks, XT instead has blocks (before re-adjustment)<br>
every 2h.<br>
<br>
<br>
The price for XTBTC coins will plummet, Satoshi progressively dumping<br>
his 1M stash over a year or so will make sure that it doesn't recover<b=
r>
either.<br>
<br>
<br>
I cannot see how Bitcoin XT is but-not in a extremely weak position from<br=
>
game theory.<br>
<br>
I'm sure smarter people than I could come up with even more ways to<br>
disrupt non-consensus forks.<br>
<br>
Cam.<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
On 16/8/2015 6:39 AM, muyuubyou via bitcoin-dev wrote:<br>
> I posted this to /r/BitcoinMarkets but I thought I might post it here =
as<br>
> well.<br>
><br>
> ---<br>
> Currently 0 mined blocks have voted for XT.<br>
><br>
> If it ever gets close to even 50%, many things can happen that would<b=
r>
> reshape the game completely.<br>
><br>
> For instance:<br>
><br>
> - Core could start boycotting XT by not relying to them and/or not rel=
ying<br>
> from them.<br>
><br>
> - Core could appropriate the version string of XT, making it impossibl=
e to<br>
> know how much they are progressing and a losing bet to actually execut=
e the<br>
> fork.<br>
><br>
> This kind of node war if the factions were sizeable would make it very=
<br>
> risky to transact at all - balances in new addresses could end up<br>
> vanishing. Usability of the system would plummet.<br>
><br>
> Note that any disagreement between the network and the biggest economi=
c<br>
> actors - mainly the exchanges at this point, "wallet services&quo=
t; maybe -<br>
> would mean BTC plummets. Hard. And so would confidence.<br>
><br>
> It's a risky game to play.<br>
> ---<br>
><br>
> PS: I consider this attempt at takeover about as foul as it gets. The<=
br>
> equivalent of repeating a referendum until a yes is obtained: the<br>
> reasonable reaction to this is actively blocking said "referendum=
". There<br>
> was a fair play alternative which is voting through coinbase scriptSig=
like<br>
> plain 8MBers are doing, or like BIP 100 proposes for dynamic adjustmen=
t.<br>
> Once a majority is obtained in this way, devs have to react or if they=
<br>
> don't then this sort of foul play would be justified. But this was=
n't the<br>
> case.<br>
><br>
> -----<br>
> =E7=82=BA=E3=81=9B=E3=81=B0=E6=88=90=E3=82=8B<br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
> _______________________________________________<br>
> bitcoin-dev mailing list<br>
> <a href=3D"mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org" target=3D"_bl=
ank">bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org</a><br>
> <a href=3D"https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-=
dev" rel=3D"noreferrer" target=3D"_blank">https://lists.linuxfoundation.org=
/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev</a><br>
><br>
<br>
_______________________________________________<br>
bitcoin-dev mailing list<br>
<a href=3D"mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org" target=3D"_blank">=
bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org</a><br>
<a href=3D"https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev" =
rel=3D"noreferrer" target=3D"_blank">https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mail=
man/listinfo/bitcoin-dev</a><br>
</blockquote></div>
--001a1141b454f16a64051d75f63c--
|