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
|
Received: from sog-mx-3.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.193]
helo=mx.sourceforge.net)
by sfs-ml-3.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76)
(envelope-from <pieter.wuille@gmail.com>) id 1YqY84-0008PQ-GA
for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Fri, 08 May 2015 02:35:08 +0000
Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-3.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of gmail.com
designates 209.85.217.176 as permitted sender)
client-ip=209.85.217.176; envelope-from=pieter.wuille@gmail.com;
helo=mail-lb0-f176.google.com;
Received: from mail-lb0-f176.google.com ([209.85.217.176])
by sog-mx-3.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128)
(Exim 4.76) id 1YqY83-0006yS-Dx
for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Fri, 08 May 2015 02:35:08 +0000
Received: by lbbuc2 with SMTP id uc2so44076303lbb.2
for <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>;
Thu, 07 May 2015 19:35:01 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.152.87.164 with SMTP id az4mr1057590lab.123.1431052501076;
Thu, 07 May 2015 19:35:01 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.112.19.7 with HTTP; Thu, 7 May 2015 19:35:00 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.112.19.7 with HTTP; Thu, 7 May 2015 19:35:00 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <20150507220848.GK63100@giles.gnomon.org.uk>
References: <20150507200023.GI63100@giles.gnomon.org.uk>
<CAE-z3OVgX9S0sJqq-iFdkZn_wK-a=Vs4VpNwxpcagDEYFzNSDQ@mail.gmail.com>
<20150507214200.GJ63100@giles.gnomon.org.uk>
<CAPg+sBidvTSAKa6exw-XavfDxPWN_6N83VKJpm8dNSBhbXYgUA@mail.gmail.com>
<20150507220848.GK63100@giles.gnomon.org.uk>
Date: Fri, 8 May 2015 04:35:00 +0200
Message-ID: <CAPg+sBg4+Hj9z6NfHMyqv=PPKpYxCGP-5RcxJFfocfUajgYGxA@mail.gmail.com>
From: Pieter Wuille <pieter.wuille@gmail.com>
To: Roy Badami <roy@gnomon.org.uk>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a11c354c2fb4f0d051588df71
X-Spam-Score: -0.6 (/)
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
(pieter.wuille[at]gmail.com)
-0.0 SPF_PASS SPF: sender matches SPF record
1.0 HTML_MESSAGE BODY: HTML included in message
-0.1 DKIM_VALID_AU Message has a valid DKIM or DK signature from
author's domain
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: 1YqY83-0006yS-Dx
Cc: Bitcoin Dev <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>
Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] Mechanics of a hard fork
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: Fri, 08 May 2015 02:35:08 -0000
--001a11c354c2fb4f0d051588df71
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
On May 7, 2015 3:08 PM, "Roy Badami" <roy@gnomon.org.uk> wrote:
>
> On Thu, May 07, 2015 at 11:49:28PM +0200, Pieter Wuille wrote:
> > I would not modify my node if the change introduced a perpetual 100 BTC
> > subsidy per block, even if 99% of miners went along with it.
>
> Surely, in that scenario Bitcoin is dead. If the fork you prefer has
> only 1% of the hash power it is trivially vulnerably not just to a 51%
> attack but to a 501% attack, not to mention the fact that you'd only
> be getting one block every 16 hours.
Yes, indeed, Bitcoin would be dead if this actually happens. But that is
still where the power lies: before anyone (miners or others) would think
about trying such a change, they would need to convince people and be sure
they will effectively modify their code.
--
Pieter
--001a11c354c2fb4f0d051588df71
Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
<p dir=3D"ltr"><br>
On May 7, 2015 3:08 PM, "Roy Badami" <<a href=3D"mailto:roy@gn=
omon.org.uk">roy@gnomon.org.uk</a>> wrote:<br>
><br>
> On Thu, May 07, 2015 at 11:49:28PM +0200, Pieter Wuille wrote:<br>
> > I would not modify my node if the change introduced a perpetual 1=
00 BTC<br>
> > subsidy per block, even if 99% of miners went along with it.<br>
><br>
> Surely, in that scenario Bitcoin is dead.=A0 If the fork you prefer ha=
s<br>
> only 1% of the hash power it is trivially vulnerably not just to a 51%=
<br>
> attack but to a 501% attack, not to mention the fact that you'd on=
ly<br>
> be getting one block every 16 hours.</p>
<p dir=3D"ltr">Yes, indeed, Bitcoin would be dead if this actually happens.=
But that is still where the power lies: before anyone (miners or others) w=
ould think about trying such a change, they would need to convince people a=
nd be sure they will effectively modify their code.</p>
<p dir=3D"ltr">-- <br>
Pieter<br>
</p>
--001a11c354c2fb4f0d051588df71--
|
