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
|
Return-Path: <ctpacia@gmail.com>
Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org
[172.17.192.35])
by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 21264899
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Sun, 26 Mar 2017 09:13:20 +0000 (UTC)
X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6
Received: from mail-yw0-f179.google.com (mail-yw0-f179.google.com
[209.85.161.179])
by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7CE59160
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Sun, 26 Mar 2017 09:13:19 +0000 (UTC)
Received: by mail-yw0-f179.google.com with SMTP id p77so15237897ywg.1
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Sun, 26 Mar 2017 02:13:19 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025;
h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to
:cc; bh=oLGOCYLNUkwWtbAaAL+3Kt9nURrMX+mcvNFTTOjTUOA=;
b=MCbfYnBoLawm3S/ZlxbGzZrPAbSzWcPdPTaeM5SS1bPwvUBE4SqVxHFBMhLG/t7TSH
EW++jsMcrd0YkEHjVnjv9sErb9EDoJqMFBZykLiGv9iAd9QBC5e5pwgrHO8KwPAkhtvQ
HLAkI+lWpDSmaAzjSvp71SSRwfIKcmQOxQ4C9f7nt96IMT5lz3i68MIAgni/gFYI8bYA
3nSYlUnXaNg/NIbZNaWEqnajR2Wcp2BGGpnWoQ/VFRTZMrZcf5KZ4ohj0nDOnQBAnLg4
a+715ej6GcAbE4EdcVA33mCl46kzzD5wwX8YdM+tYkxvGj3E4lRw6vUSONM5gX3YrZF5
xExg==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
d=1e100.net; s=20161025;
h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date
:message-id:subject:to:cc;
bh=oLGOCYLNUkwWtbAaAL+3Kt9nURrMX+mcvNFTTOjTUOA=;
b=d6zm8KslFc9vATuusKe1xCLD1Z+QDJqeddtUcMZg0pz/mgUbz3lvP65B5AOKspDa/Q
M5MdyKvDVFgd1/VS4msjvFnrjEcsoAM35yxNlZeqr6NasMAfthLYB6OCdt6OQQYfXLyy
eSSbZGMva0Y43ahR+Iq4DivB+R+9/2wC9XBsgVZCQDeDkoEFnorSNV5zp1DxoJqh9GOu
TGz7LQUGl6TfRGntkQV4G92boEKwemT/xRj9QlZso8uLCFGVh3nfKMPFfKZ81WgNY27W
s0FVth2NqS9gbksnLmm5XmNKlHgG3y/FRwmFxs6h07L6wisLx06NHMBGZeH0klaJLfyy
APgA==
X-Gm-Message-State: AFeK/H1FaHvCKE4Uk0ZyAWDxjQJub1KoB9VywEFxapKsWNMP3ip7VdvTSPbMEvtykelTFBZsSm0TQ/nnATcwWQ==
X-Received: by 10.129.89.135 with SMTP id n129mr12435441ywb.94.1490519598398;
Sun, 26 Mar 2017 02:13:18 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.37.55.150 with HTTP; Sun, 26 Mar 2017 02:13:17 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.37.55.150 with HTTP; Sun, 26 Mar 2017 02:13:17 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <CAPWm=eV2aLJKMM_5T-jaXCm1umRFxy+vfirBqCGAvUKHtOphQg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <5b9ba6c4-6d8f-9c0b-2420-2be6c30f87b5@cannon-ciota.info>
<35ba77db-f95a-4517-c960-8ad42a633ba0@gmail.com>
<f4849cef-3c40-31a4-e323-6a731bb52bc2@cannon-ciota.info>
<9C2A6867-470D-4336-8439-17F4E0CA4B17@gmx.com>
<CAPWm=eV2aLJKMM_5T-jaXCm1umRFxy+vfirBqCGAvUKHtOphQg@mail.gmail.com>
From: Chris Pacia <ctpacia@gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 26 Mar 2017 05:13:17 -0400
Message-ID: <CAB+qUq47LUCSNUPZRY=ROrrHH5a6SLYrhwBs4msjWJt9ArUwpA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Alex Morcos <morcos@gmail.com>,
Bitcoin Protocol Discussion <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a11470b7431844e054b9ea334
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.5 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED,
DKIM_VALID, DKIM_VALID_AU, FREEMAIL_FROM, HTML_MESSAGE,
RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE,
RCVD_IN_SORBS_SPAM autolearn=no version=3.3.1
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on
smtp1.linux-foundation.org
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Defending against empty or near empty blocks from
malicious miner takeover?
X-BeenThere: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Bitcoin Protocol 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, 26 Mar 2017 09:13:20 -0000
--001a11470b7431844e054b9ea334
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
On Mar 25, 2017 10:38 PM, "Alex Morcos via bitcoin-dev" <
bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
As a Bitcoin user I find it abhorrent the way you are proposing to
intentionally cripple the chain and rules I want to use instead of just
peacefully splitting.
I just want to point out what appears to be doublespeak going on here.
First, I think it would seem obvious to an observer that a sizable portion
of the community (certainly greater than 5%) view segwit as preventing
"rules I want to use instead of just peacefully splitting" but no
consideration was given to these people when designing segwit as a
softfork. I believe it was Luke who went as far as saying consensus does
not matter when it comes softforks.
Furthermore, when segwit was first introduced it kicked off a round of
softfork/hardfork debate which I participated in. The primary concern that
I and other raised was precisely what is going on now.. that miners could
unilaterally impose an unpopular change to the protocol rules.
At the time I told, rather forcefully, by multiple people that miners have
an "absolute right" to softfork in whatever rules they want. Which, of
course, is absurd on it's face.
But I don't see how people can make such claims on the one hand, and then
complain when this process is used against them.
It amounts to nothing more than "When it's rules I like we get to impose
them on non-consenting users. When it's rules I don't like it's an attack
on the network".
It was completely obvious this entire time that softforks were a very
slippery slope, now we are indeed sliding down that slope.
--001a11470b7431844e054b9ea334
Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
<div dir=3D"auto"><br><div class=3D"gmail_extra" dir=3D"auto"><br><div clas=
s=3D"gmail_quote">On Mar 25, 2017 10:38 PM, "Alex Morcos via bitcoin-d=
ev" <<a href=3D"mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org">bitco=
in-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org</a>> wrote:<blockquote class=3D"quote" =
style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><di=
v dir=3D"ltr"><div><br></div><div>As a Bitcoin user I find it abhorrent the=
way you are proposing to intentionally cripple the chain and rules I want =
to use instead of just peacefully splitting.</div></div></blockquote></div>=
</div><div dir=3D"auto"><br></div><div dir=3D"auto">I just want to point ou=
t what appears to be doublespeak going on here.=C2=A0</div><div dir=3D"auto=
"><br></div><div dir=3D"auto">First, I think it would seem obvious to an ob=
server that a sizable portion of the community (certainly greater than 5%) =
view segwit as preventing "rules I want to use instead of just peacefu=
lly splitting" but no consideration was given to these people when des=
igning segwit as a softfork. I believe it was Luke who went as far as sayin=
g consensus does not matter when it comes softforks.=C2=A0</div><div dir=3D=
"auto"><br></div><div dir=3D"auto">Furthermore, when segwit was first intro=
duced it kicked off a round of softfork/hardfork debate which I participate=
d in. The primary concern that I and other raised was precisely what is goi=
ng on now.. that miners could unilaterally impose an unpopular change to th=
e protocol rules.=C2=A0</div><div dir=3D"auto"><br></div><div dir=3D"auto">=
At the time I told, rather forcefully, by multiple people that miners have =
an "absolute right" to softfork in whatever rules they want. Whic=
h, of course, is absurd on it's face.</div><div dir=3D"auto"><br></div>=
<div dir=3D"auto">But I don't see how people can make such claims on th=
e one hand, and then complain when this process is used against them.</div>=
<div dir=3D"auto"><br></div><div dir=3D"auto">It amounts to nothing more th=
an "When it's rules I like we get to impose them on non-consenting=
users. When it's rules I don't like it's an attack on the netw=
ork".=C2=A0</div><div dir=3D"auto"><br></div><div dir=3D"auto">It was =
completely obvious this entire time that softforks were a very slippery slo=
pe, now we are indeed sliding down that slope.=C2=A0</div><div dir=3D"auto"=
><br></div><div dir=3D"auto"><br></div><div class=3D"gmail_extra" dir=3D"au=
to"></div></div>
--001a11470b7431844e054b9ea334--
|
