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
|
Return-Path: <j@toom.im>
Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org
[172.17.192.35])
by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 31484B2E
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Tue, 29 Sep 2015 14:17:40 +0000 (UTC)
X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6
Received: from d.mail.sonic.net (d.mail.sonic.net [64.142.111.50])
by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 943EE2F
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Tue, 29 Sep 2015 14:17:39 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from [192.168.1.190] (63.135.62.197.nwinternet.com [63.135.62.197]
(may be forged)) (authenticated bits=0)
by d.mail.sonic.net (8.15.1/8.15.1) with ESMTPSA id t8TEHZLh028458
(version=TLSv1 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NOT);
Tue, 29 Sep 2015 07:17:36 -0700
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 7.3 \(1878.6\))
Content-Type: multipart/signed;
boundary="Apple-Mail=_74C663F9-EECE-4FD2-AACC-7FA080477E44";
protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg=pgp-sha512
X-Pgp-Agent: GPGMail 2.5.1
From: "Jonathan Toomim (Toomim Bros)" <j@toom.im>
In-Reply-To: <CABsx9T2pDwNBrC-3w8vHeaLYZ6eoNTNU0gW741Y51YL9hU-kiA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 2015 07:17:35 -0700
Message-Id: <0DCA91F5-E6D3-49CB-B473-D1AE1D3D9885@toom.im>
References: <CABsx9T2pDwNBrC-3w8vHeaLYZ6eoNTNU0gW741Y51YL9hU-kiA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Gavin Andresen <gavinandresen@gmail.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1878.6)
X-Sonic-CAuth: UmFuZG9tSVb9ywHyRoqxA91w6T7Dxuctgv8hoGuYCR0roMFxfH24vKVIHh5LD7M0A3v1kSN/B9IBzEJgbBeEumgqaxXeyn7C
X-Sonic-ID: C;jBvW1LRm5RGJGeK7sH9FTg== M;MpFL1bRm5RGJGeK7sH9FTg==
X-Sonic-Spam-Details: 0.0/5.0 by cerberusd
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,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
Cc: Bitcoin Dev <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Is it possible for there to be two chains after a
hard fork?
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: Tue, 29 Sep 2015 14:17:40 -0000
--Apple-Mail=_74C663F9-EECE-4FD2-AACC-7FA080477E44
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
boundary="Apple-Mail=_16AD04F3-1D28-4CF5-850B-1C24951A3457"
--Apple-Mail=_16AD04F3-1D28-4CF5-850B-1C24951A3457
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset=us-ascii
At the 95% threshold, I don't think it would happen unless there was a =
very strong motivating factor, like a small group believing that CLTV =
was a conspiracy run by the NSA agent John Titor to contaminate our =
precious bodily fluids with time-traveling traveler's cheques.
At the 75% threshold, I think it could happen with mostly rational =
users, but even then it's not very likely with most forks. With the =
blocksize issue, there are some people who get very religious about =
things like decentralization or fee markets and think that even 1 MB is =
too large; I could see them making financial sacrifices in order to try =
to make a small-block parallel fork a reality, one that is true to their =
vision of what's needed to make Bitcoin true and pure, or whatever.
On Sep 29, 2015, at 7:04 AM, Gavin Andresen <gavinandresen@gmail.com> =
wrote:
> I keep seeing statements like this:
>=20
> On Tue, Sep 29, 2015 at 9:30 AM, Jonathan Toomim (Toomim Bros) via =
bitcoin-dev <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
> As a further benefit to hard forks, anybody who is ideologically =
opposed to the change can continue to use the old version successfully, =
as long as there are enough miners to keep the fork alive.
>=20
> ... but I can't see how that would work.
>=20
> Lets say there is a hard fork, and 5% of miners stubbornly refuse to =
go along with the 95% majority (for this thought experiment, it doesn't =
matter if the old rules or new rules 'win').
>=20
> Lets further imagine that some exchange decides to support that 5% and =
lets people trade coins from that fork (one of the small altcoin =
exchanges would definitely do this if they think they can make a =
profit).
>=20
> Now, lets say I've got a lot of pre-fork bitcoin; they're valid on =
both sides of the fork. I support the 95% chain (because I'm not =
insane), but I'm happy to take people's money if they're stupid enough =
to give it to me.
>=20
> So, I do the following:
>=20
> 1) Create a send-to-self transaction on the 95% fork that is ONLY =
valid on the 95% fork (maybe I CoinJoin with a post-fork coinbase =
transaction, or just move my coins into then out of an exchange's very =
active hot wallet so I get coins with a long transaction history on the =
95% side of the fork).
>=20
> 2) Transfer those same coins to the 5% exchange and sell them for =
whatever price I can get (I don't care how low, it is free money to me-- =
I will still own the coins on the 95% fork).
>=20
> I have to do step (1) to prevent the exchange from taking the =
transfer-to-exchange transaction and replaying it on the 95% chain.
>=20
> I don't see any way of preventing EVERYBODY who has coins on the 95% =
side of the fork from doing that. The result would be a huge free-fall =
in price as I, and everybody else, rushes to get some free money from =
anybody willing to pay us to remain idealogically pure.
>=20
> Does anybody think something else would happen, and do you think that =
ANYBODY would stick to the 5% fork in the face of enormously long =
transaction confirmation times (~3 hours), a huge transaction backlog as =
lots of the 95%'ers try to sell their coins before the price drops, and =
a massive price drop for coins on the 5% fork.
>=20
> --
> --
> Gavin Andresen
>=20
--Apple-Mail=_16AD04F3-1D28-4CF5-850B-1C24951A3457
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Type: text/html;
charset=us-ascii
<html><head><meta http-equiv=3D"Content-Type" content=3D"text/html =
charset=3Dus-ascii"></head><body style=3D"word-wrap: break-word; =
-webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space;">At the =
95% threshold, I don't think it would happen unless there was a very =
strong motivating factor, like a small group believing that CLTV was a =
conspiracy run by the NSA agent John Titor to contaminate our precious =
bodily fluids with time-traveling traveler's =
cheques. <div><br></div><div>At the 75% threshold, I think it could =
happen with mostly rational users, but even then it's not very likely =
with most forks. With the blocksize issue, there are some people who get =
very religious about things like decentralization or fee markets and =
think that even 1 MB is too large; I could see them making financial =
sacrifices in order to try to make a small-block parallel fork a =
reality, one that is true to their vision of what's needed to make =
Bitcoin true and pure, or =
whatever.<div><div><br></div><div><div><br></div><div><br><div><br><div><d=
iv>On Sep 29, 2015, at 7:04 AM, Gavin Andresen <<a =
href=3D"mailto:gavinandresen@gmail.com">gavinandresen@gmail.com</a>> =
wrote:</div><br class=3D"Apple-interchange-newline"><blockquote =
type=3D"cite"><div dir=3D"ltr"><div class=3D"gmail_extra"><div =
class=3D"gmail_quote">I keep seeing statements like this:</div><div =
class=3D"gmail_quote"><br></div><div class=3D"gmail_quote">On Tue, Sep =
29, 2015 at 9:30 AM, Jonathan Toomim (Toomim Bros) via bitcoin-dev <span =
dir=3D"ltr"><<a href=3D"mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org" =
target=3D"_blank">bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org</a>></span> =
wrote:<br><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 =
.8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">As a further benefit =
to hard forks, anybody who is ideologically opposed to the change can =
continue to use the old version successfully, as long as there are =
enough miners to keep the fork alive.</blockquote></div><br>... but I =
can't see how that would work.</div><div =
class=3D"gmail_extra"><br></div><div class=3D"gmail_extra">Lets say =
there is a hard fork, and 5% of miners stubbornly refuse to go along =
with the 95% majority (for this thought experiment, it doesn't matter if =
the old rules or new rules 'win').</div><div =
class=3D"gmail_extra"><br></div><div class=3D"gmail_extra">Lets further =
imagine that some exchange decides to support that 5% and lets people =
trade coins from that fork (one of the small altcoin exchanges would =
definitely do this if they think they can make a profit).</div><div =
class=3D"gmail_extra"><br></div><div class=3D"gmail_extra">Now, lets say =
I've got a lot of pre-fork bitcoin; they're valid on both sides of the =
fork. I support the 95% chain (because I'm not insane), but I'm happy to =
take people's money if they're stupid enough to give it to me.</div><div =
class=3D"gmail_extra"><br></div><div class=3D"gmail_extra">So, I do the =
following:</div><div class=3D"gmail_extra"><br></div><div =
class=3D"gmail_extra">1) Create a send-to-self transaction on the 95% =
fork that is ONLY valid on the 95% fork (maybe I CoinJoin with a =
post-fork coinbase transaction, or just move my coins into then out of =
an exchange's very active hot wallet so I get coins with a long =
transaction history on the 95% side of the fork).</div><div =
class=3D"gmail_extra"><br></div><div class=3D"gmail_extra">2) Transfer =
those same coins to the 5% exchange and sell them for whatever =
price I can get (I don't care how low, it is free money to me-- I will =
still own the coins on the 95% fork).</div><div =
class=3D"gmail_extra"><br></div><div class=3D"gmail_extra">I have to do =
step (1) to prevent the exchange from taking the transfer-to-exchange =
transaction and replaying it on the 95% chain.<br><br>I don't see any =
way of preventing EVERYBODY who has coins on the 95% side of the fork =
from doing that. The result would be a huge free-fall in price as I, and =
everybody else, rushes to get some free money from anybody willing to =
pay us to remain idealogically pure.</div><div =
class=3D"gmail_extra"><br></div><div class=3D"gmail_extra">Does anybody =
think something else would happen, and do you think that ANYBODY would =
stick to the 5% fork in the face of enormously long transaction =
confirmation times (~3 hours), a huge transaction backlog as lots of the =
95%'ers try to sell their coins before the price drops, and a massive =
price drop for coins on the 5% fork.<br clear=3D"all"><div><br></div>-- =
<br><div class=3D"gmail_signature">--<br>Gavin Andresen<br></div><div =
class=3D"gmail_signature"><br></div>
</div></div>
</blockquote></div><br></div></div></div></div></div></body></html>=
--Apple-Mail=_16AD04F3-1D28-4CF5-850B-1C24951A3457--
--Apple-Mail=_74C663F9-EECE-4FD2-AACC-7FA080477E44
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename=signature.asc
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature;
name=signature.asc
Content-Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Comment: GPGTools - https://gpgtools.org
iQEcBAEBCgAGBQJWCp1/AAoJEIEuMk4MG0P138oH+gMU6mEewhD22MGVxdbGjxaO
/dVNMsKPAyMn4ki9b+2SEddekiY5t2TowtmtKEGrkIrE2PSOb0h5ILXNiyZSQ47N
D6fCAIeJ3QJiPb424AQjhzw62IH8bzIMlN9+U9vxr3NTJJdpvfoOLb+1Pj7XplsE
v21Qcg0PWETfFByXuVItWdRcUxCnzqA/SJO/go3fa3Pqn5jDglm6lvBpxRoeY+ql
QceMDqUHGjFwMzjEeMsl3OsMDXWGtIGfTROt7K5UsCi2eNfGLJsSMe5WQZM+qqxH
twaN2HcDTAaGyQQAc8TD1fYO1/IVUSKd8BJS8XkvjEohbz5oPHARM+Qfl+S22Jg=
=39cK
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--Apple-Mail=_74C663F9-EECE-4FD2-AACC-7FA080477E44--
|