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
|
Received: from sog-mx-2.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.192]
helo=mx.sourceforge.net)
by sfs-ml-4.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76)
(envelope-from <mh.in.england@gmail.com>) id 1Wf8ms-0000oE-Fa
for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Tue, 29 Apr 2014 14:13:34 +0000
Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-2.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of gmail.com
designates 209.85.214.179 as permitted sender)
client-ip=209.85.214.179; envelope-from=mh.in.england@gmail.com;
helo=mail-ob0-f179.google.com;
Received: from mail-ob0-f179.google.com ([209.85.214.179])
by sog-mx-2.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128)
(Exim 4.76) id 1Wf8mr-0002gt-IN
for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Tue, 29 Apr 2014 14:13:34 +0000
Received: by mail-ob0-f179.google.com with SMTP id vb8so283756obc.38
for <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>;
Tue, 29 Apr 2014 07:13:28 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.60.132.236 with SMTP id ox12mr1101952oeb.81.1398780808180;
Tue, 29 Apr 2014 07:13:28 -0700 (PDT)
Sender: mh.in.england@gmail.com
Received: by 10.76.96.180 with HTTP; Tue, 29 Apr 2014 07:13:28 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <20140428214102.GA8347@netbook.cypherspace.org>
References: <CANEZrP3obO9rXKcX+G7bs2dd3AqEFOsO8pCUF6orrkGeZyr9Ew@mail.gmail.com>
<CAC1+kJPxwTm6qvh2GYT2XMJAPD5O4WHLOGBTRmchRmZ2wS4MSg@mail.gmail.com>
<CANEZrP2PZFVvH3oJyLW80e9W_Fa4bvqQ25E7T-ZFFuG9u-q1hQ@mail.gmail.com>
<5359E509.4080907@gmail.com>
<CANEZrP0bKe-=T5ps0myLZjo60tv2mkm3Bw0o4e-9y7zb1h5eDg@mail.gmail.com>
<535A60FE.10209@gmail.com>
<CANEZrP0y45eSVgbzXYmvYy1WEQNyd=tmC2EpZgGSB28poXSzDw@mail.gmail.com>
<535BA357.6050607@gmail.com>
<CANOOu=_T82zuV79DWZFGK0Nomhp-Y4tqOhw6ZHhCLb2uGtdR5w@mail.gmail.com>
<535CFDB4.1000200@gmail.com>
<20140428214102.GA8347@netbook.cypherspace.org>
Date: Tue, 29 Apr 2014 16:13:28 +0200
X-Google-Sender-Auth: hGUSamA1aOB5NJ0rRKFlhvFeff0
Message-ID: <CANEZrP0E=i6gyJwvLZRTeKvqaVrxR69=UzJWsAqaK2=QSdtn_A@mail.gmail.com>
From: Mike Hearn <mike@plan99.net>
To: Adam Back <adam@cypherspace.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=047d7b41cd2831314104f82f0965
X-Spam-Score: -0.5 (/)
X-Spam-Report: Spam Filtering performed by mx.sourceforge.net.
See http://spamassassin.org/tag/ for more details.
-1.5 SPF_CHECK_PASS SPF reports sender host as permitted sender for
sender-domain
0.0 FREEMAIL_FROM Sender email is commonly abused enduser mail provider
(mh.in.england[at]gmail.com)
-0.0 SPF_PASS SPF: sender matches SPF record
1.0 HTML_MESSAGE BODY: HTML included in message
0.1 DKIM_SIGNED Message has a DKIM or DK signature,
not necessarily valid
-0.1 DKIM_VALID Message has at least one valid DKIM or DK signature
X-Headers-End: 1Wf8mr-0002gt-IN
Cc: Bitcoin Dev <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>
Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] Coinbase reallocation to discourage
Finney attacks
X-BeenThere: bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: <bitcoin-development.lists.sourceforge.net>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development>,
<mailto:bitcoin-development-request@lists.sourceforge.net?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://sourceforge.net/mailarchive/forum.php?forum_name=bitcoin-development>
List-Post: <mailto:bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>
List-Help: <mailto:bitcoin-development-request@lists.sourceforge.net?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development>,
<mailto:bitcoin-development-request@lists.sourceforge.net?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 29 Apr 2014 14:13:34 -0000
--047d7b41cd2831314104f82f0965
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
I do think we need to move beyond this idea of Bitcoin being some kind of
elegant embodiment of natural mathematical law. It just ain't so.
Every time miners and nodes ignore a block that creates >formula() coins
that's a majority vote on a controversial political matter, as evidenced by
the disagreement with mainstream economics and that it's one of the most
common things for alt coins to change. Indeed Satoshi's chosen inflation
formula is a highly political statement on the value of inflation - he
could have programmed Bitcoin to inflate forever and avoided a whole area
of politics, but he chose not to.
So please, let's agree to accept that Bitcoin is ultimately just a piece of
software that encodes rules helping us run our little community in some
specific ways. It's not physics and we should believe our own hype by
pretending it is.
On Mon, Apr 28, 2014 at 11:41 PM, Adam Back <adam@cypherspace.org> wrote:
> I think the reason that it would likely work out badly is that its not
> provable, and so no consensus rule can be constructed requiring proof, so
> then it risks devolving to a political decision.
>
It's the other way around. If miners decide to fork the chain then that
leaves no proof (beyond the old blocks, which could have been a natural
fork - there's no way to know - and nodes don't want to keep them around
anyway). If they explicitly vote to get the same effect but without
actually forking, it leaves a proof in the form of the votes in the
coinbase that can be seen afterwards.
> Step 3: Finney attackers vote down other pools to make the point.
It only works if the majority of hashpower is controlled by attackers, in
which case Bitcoin is already doomed. So it doesn't matter at that point.
--047d7b41cd2831314104f82f0965
Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
<div dir=3D"ltr">I do think we need to move beyond this idea of Bitcoin bei=
ng some kind of elegant embodiment of natural mathematical law. It just ain=
't so.=C2=A0<div><br></div><div>Every time miners and nodes ignore a bl=
ock that creates >formula() coins that's a majority vote on a contro=
versial political matter, as evidenced by the disagreement with mainstream =
economics and that it's one of the most common things for alt coins to =
change. Indeed Satoshi's chosen inflation formula is a highly political=
statement on the value of inflation - he could have programmed Bitcoin to =
inflate forever and avoided a whole area of politics, but he chose not to.<=
/div>
<div><br></div><div>So please, let's agree to accept that Bitcoin is ul=
timately just a piece of software that encodes rules helping us run our lit=
tle community in some specific ways. It's not physics and we should bel=
ieve our own hype by pretending it is.</div>
<div><div><div class=3D"gmail_extra"><br><div class=3D"gmail_quote">On Mon,=
Apr 28, 2014 at 11:41 PM, Adam Back <span dir=3D"ltr"><<a href=3D"mailt=
o:adam@cypherspace.org" target=3D"_blank">adam@cypherspace.org</a>></spa=
n> wrote:<br>
<blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1p=
x #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">I think the reason that it would likely work=
out badly is that its not<br>
provable, and so no consensus rule can be constructed requiring proof, so<b=
r>
then it risks devolving to a political decision.<br></blockquote><div><br><=
/div><div>It's the other way around. If miners decide to fork the chain=
then that leaves no proof (beyond the old blocks, which could have been a =
natural fork - there's no way to know - and nodes don't want to kee=
p them around anyway). If they explicitly vote to get the same effect but w=
ithout actually forking, it leaves a proof in the form of the votes in the =
coinbase that can be seen afterwards.</div>
<div>=C2=A0</div><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8=
ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">Step 3: Finney attackers vo=
te down other pools to make the point.</blockquote><div><br></div><div>It o=
nly works if the majority of hashpower is controlled by attackers, in which=
case Bitcoin is already doomed. So it doesn't matter at that point.=C2=
=A0</div>
</div></div></div></div></div>
--047d7b41cd2831314104f82f0965--
|
