path: root/34/f2b6d7ae64a38e55aa85fc7ecdb1e8866d0fe4

Return-Path: <email@yancy.lol>
Received: from smtp2.osuosl.org (smtp2.osuosl.org [IPv6:2605:bc80:3010::133])
 by lists.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3A0BCC002D
 for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
 Fri, 21 Oct 2022 08:47:24 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1])
 by smtp2.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1BAA14115D
 for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
 Fri, 21 Oct 2022 08:47:24 +0000 (UTC)
DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 smtp2.osuosl.org 1BAA14115D
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at osuosl.org
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.599
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5
 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7,
 SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from smtp2.osuosl.org ([127.0.0.1])
 by localhost (smtp2.osuosl.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024)
 with ESMTP id YrqLe8Q7kfgW
 for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
 Fri, 21 Oct 2022 08:47:22 +0000 (UTC)
X-Greylist: delayed 13:25:20 by SQLgrey-1.8.0
DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 smtp2.osuosl.org 6260B40123
Received: from relay8-d.mail.gandi.net (relay8-d.mail.gandi.net
 [217.70.183.201])
 by smtp2.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6260B40123
 for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
 Fri, 21 Oct 2022 08:47:22 +0000 (UTC)
Received: (Authenticated sender: email@yancy.lol)
 by mail.gandi.net (Postfix) with ESMTPA id 7BDB21BF210;
 Fri, 21 Oct 2022 08:47:19 +0000 (UTC)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Date: Fri, 21 Oct 2022 10:47:19 +0200
From: email@yancy.lol
To: Peter Todd <pete@petertodd.org>, Bitcoin Protocol Discussion
 <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
In-Reply-To: <Y1HnJnpW9Al1W8cP@petertodd.org>
References: <CAD5xwhjXh33AdK96eToHtDP3t_Zx5JbxCqJFbAQRRRKy6rFC2Q@mail.gmail.com>
 <Y1HLgLkCmVJQtqT+@petertodd.org>
 <CAD5xwhhiOReFJq2gOk2n5tJpD-X-x8aKGrdkdrwi1yJCis0y4g@mail.gmail.com>
 <Y1HnJnpW9Al1W8cP@petertodd.org>
Message-ID: <1f575fa24af142126507eebdf0e6b2e8@yancy.lol>
X-Sender: email@yancy.lol
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
 boundary="=_37a2996167c1835d3a565f1477d4dd82"
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Fri, 21 Oct 2022 12:11:23 +0000
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Does Bitcoin require or have an honest majority
 or a rational one? (re rbf)
X-BeenThere: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
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: Fri, 21 Oct 2022 08:47:24 -0000

--=_37a2996167c1835d3a565f1477d4dd82
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII;
 format=flowed



> ...and the easiest way to avoid Bitcoin being a system that doesn't 
> arbitrarily
> change rules, is to rely on economically rational rules that aren't 
> likely to
> change!

Yes, I think many people on this thread have been making the same point. 
  This is the basis of the Nash Equilibrium, from what I remember.

> This, Satoshi (who doesn't really matter anyways I guess?)

It doesn't seem to me Satoshi was classically trained in CS else maybe 
he/she/they might have referenced the Nash Equilibrium.  Looking at some 
of the other references, including a statistics book titled "An 
Introduction to Probability Theory and its Applications" from 1957 makes 
me think this Satoshi person was closer in training and practice to a 
mathematician.

Cheers,
-Yancy

On 2022-10-21 02:26, Peter Todd via bitcoin-dev wrote:

> On Thu, Oct 20, 2022 at 04:54:00PM -0700, Jeremy Rubin wrote:
> 
>> The difference between honest majority and longest chain is that the
>> longest chain bug was something acknowledged by Satoshi & patched
>> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/commit/40cd0369419323f8d7385950e20342e998c994e1#diff-623e3fd6da1a45222eeec71496747b31R420
>> .
>> 
>> OTOH, we have more explicit references that the honest majority really
>> should be thought of as good guys vs bad guys... e.g.
> 
> The point is Satoshi got a lot of very fundamental stuff wrong. 
> Bringing up
> what Satoshi wrote now, almost 14 years later, misleads less-technical 
> readers
> into thinking our understanding of Bitcoin is still based on that 
> early,
> incorrect, understanding.
> 
> Incidentally, you realize that it was _Satoshi_ who added RBF to 
> Bitcoin with
> nSequence replacements. My contribution was to fix that obviously 
> broken design
> with fee-based RBF (with nSequence a transaction could be replaced up 
> to 4
> billion times, using essentially unlimited P2P bandwidth; it was a 
> terrible
> idea).
> 
>> I do think the case can be fairly made for full RBF, but if you don't 
>> grok
>> the above maybe you won't have as much empathy for people who built a
>> business around particular aspects of the Bitcoin network that they 
>> feel
>> are now being changed. They have every right to be mad about that and 
>> make
>> disagreements known and argue for why we should preserve these 
>> properties.
> 
> Those people run mild sybil attacks on the network in their efforts to
> "mitigate risk" by monitoring propagation; fundamentally doing so is
> centralizing and unfair, as only a small number of companies can do 
> that
> without DoS attacking the P2P network. It's pretty obvious that 
> reliance to
> zeroconf is harmful to Bitcoin, and people trying to do that have 
> repeatedly
> taken big losses when their risk mitigations turned out to not work. 
> Their only
> right to be mad comes from the 1st Ammendment.
> 
>> As someone who wants for Bitcoin to be a system which doesn't 
>> arbitrarily
>> change rules based on the whims of others, I think it important that 
>> we can
>> steelman and provide strong cases for why our actions might be in the
>> wrong, so that we make sure our justifications are not only 
>> well-justified,
>> but that we can communicate them clearly to all participants in a 
>> global
>> value network.
> 
> ...and the easiest way to avoid Bitcoin being a system that doesn't 
> arbitrarily
> change rules, is to rely on economically rational rules that aren't 
> likely to
> change!
> 
> _______________________________________________
> bitcoin-dev mailing list
> bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
--=_37a2996167c1835d3a565f1477d4dd82
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8

<html><head><meta http-equiv=3D"Content-Type" content=3D"text/html; charset=
=3DUTF-8" /></head><body style=3D'font-size: 10pt; font-family: Verdana,Gen=
eva,sans-serif'>
<blockquote type=3D"cite" style=3D"padding: 0 0.4em; border-left: #1010ff 2=
px solid; margin: 0">
<div class=3D"pre" style=3D"margin: 0; padding: 0; font-family: monospace">=
=2E..and the easiest way to avoid Bitcoin being a system that doesn't arbit=
rarily<br />change rules, is to rely on economically rational rules that ar=
en't likely to<br />change!</div>
</blockquote>
<div class=3D"pre" style=3D"margin: 0; padding: 0; font-family: monospace">=
&nbsp;</div>
<div class=3D"pre" style=3D"margin: 0; padding: 0; font-family: monospace">=
Yes, I think many people on this thread have been making the same point.&nb=
sp; This is the basis of the Nash Equilibrium, from what I remember.</div>
<div class=3D"pre" style=3D"margin: 0; padding: 0; font-family: monospace">=
&nbsp;</div>
<div class=3D"pre" style=3D"margin: 0; padding: 0; font-family: monospace">
<blockquote type=3D"cite" style=3D"padding: 0 0.4em; border-left: #1010ff 2=
px solid; margin: 0">
<div dir=3D"auto">This, Satoshi (who doesn't really matter anyways I guess?=
)</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
<div class=3D"pre" style=3D"margin: 0; padding: 0; font-family: monospace">=
&nbsp;</div>
<div class=3D"pre" style=3D"margin: 0; padding: 0; font-family: monospace">=
It doesn't seem to me Satoshi was classically trained in CS else maybe he/s=
he/they might have referenced the Nash Equilibrium.&nbsp; Looking at some o=
f the other references, including a statistics book titled <span style=3D"l=
eft: 355.467px; top: 759.2px; font-size: 10pt; font-family: serif; transfor=
m: scaleX(0.796397); color: #252525;">"An Introduction to Probability Theor=
y and its Applications" from 1957</span> makes me think this Satoshi person=
 was closer in training and practice to a mathematician.</div>
<div class=3D"pre" style=3D"margin: 0; padding: 0; font-family: monospace">=
&nbsp;</div>
<div class=3D"pre" style=3D"margin: 0; padding: 0; font-family: monospace">=
Cheers,</div>
<div class=3D"pre" style=3D"margin: 0; padding: 0; font-family: monospace">=
-Yancy</div>
<div class=3D"pre" style=3D"margin: 0; padding: 0; font-family: monospace">=
&nbsp;</div>
<div class=3D"pre" style=3D"margin: 0; padding: 0; font-family: monospace">=
On 2022-10-21 02:26, Peter Todd via bitcoin-dev wrote:
<blockquote type=3D"cite" style=3D"padding: 0 0.4em; border-left: #1010ff 2=
px solid; margin: 0">On Thu, Oct 20, 2022 at 04:54:00PM -0700, Jeremy Rubin=
 wrote:
<blockquote type=3D"cite" style=3D"padding: 0 0.4em; border-left: #1010ff 2=
px solid; margin: 0">The difference between honest majority and longest cha=
in is that the<br />longest chain bug was something acknowledged by Satoshi=
 &amp; patched<br /><a href=3D"https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/commit/40=
cd0369419323f8d7385950e20342e998c994e1#diff-623e3fd6da1a45222eeec71496747b3=
1R420" target=3D"_blank" rel=3D"noopener noreferrer">https://github.com/bit=
coin/bitcoin/commit/40cd0369419323f8d7385950e20342e998c994e1#diff-623e3fd6d=
a1a45222eeec71496747b31R420</a><br />.<br /><br /><br />OTOH, we have more =
explicit references that the honest majority really<br />should be thought =
of as good guys vs bad guys... e.g.</blockquote>
<br />The point is Satoshi got a lot of very fundamental stuff wrong. Bring=
ing up<br />what Satoshi wrote now, almost 14 years later, misleads less-te=
chnical readers<br />into thinking our understanding of Bitcoin is still ba=
sed on that early,<br />incorrect, understanding.<br /><br />Incidentally, =
you realize that it was _Satoshi_ who added RBF to Bitcoin with<br />nSeque=
nce replacements. My contribution was to fix that obviously broken design<b=
r />with fee-based RBF (with nSequence a transaction could be replaced up t=
o 4<br />billion times, using essentially unlimited P2P bandwidth; it was a=
 terrible<br />idea).<br /><br />
<blockquote type=3D"cite" style=3D"padding: 0 0.4em; border-left: #1010ff 2=
px solid; margin: 0">I do think the case can be fairly made for full RBF, b=
ut if you don't grok<br />the above maybe you won't have as much empathy fo=
r people who built a<br />business around particular aspects of the Bitcoin=
 network that they feel<br />are now being changed. They have every right t=
o be mad about that and make<br />disagreements known and argue for why we =
should preserve these properties.</blockquote>
<br />Those people run mild sybil attacks on the network in their efforts t=
o<br />"mitigate risk" by monitoring propagation; fundamentally doing so is=
<br />centralizing and unfair, as only a small number of companies can do t=
hat<br />without DoS attacking the P2P network. It's pretty obvious that re=
liance to<br />zeroconf is harmful to Bitcoin, and people trying to do that=
 have repeatedly<br />taken big losses when their risk mitigations turned o=
ut to not work. Their only<br />right to be mad comes from the 1st Ammendme=
nt.<br /><br />
<blockquote type=3D"cite" style=3D"padding: 0 0.4em; border-left: #1010ff 2=
px solid; margin: 0">As someone who wants for Bitcoin to be a system which =
doesn't arbitrarily<br />change rules based on the whims of others, I think=
 it important that we can<br />steelman and provide strong cases for why ou=
r actions might be in the<br />wrong, so that we make sure our justificatio=
ns are not only well-justified,<br />but that we can communicate them clear=
ly to all participants in a global<br />value network.</blockquote>
<br />...and the easiest way to avoid Bitcoin being a system that doesn't a=
rbitrarily<br />change rules, is to rely on economically rational rules tha=
t aren't likely to<br />change!<br /><br />________________________________=
_______________<br />bitcoin-dev mailing list<br /><a href=3D"mailto:bitcoi=
n-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org">bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org</a><=
br /><a href=3D"https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-=
dev" target=3D"_blank" rel=3D"noopener noreferrer">https://lists.linuxfound=
ation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev</a></blockquote>
</div>
</body></html>

--=_37a2996167c1835d3a565f1477d4dd82--