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
|
Received: from sog-mx-2.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.192]
helo=mx.sourceforge.net)
by sfs-ml-2.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76)
(envelope-from <gmaxwell@gmail.com>) id 1WdEsS-0004Hx-LL
for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Thu, 24 Apr 2014 08:19:28 +0000
Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-2.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of gmail.com
designates 209.85.217.182 as permitted sender)
client-ip=209.85.217.182; envelope-from=gmaxwell@gmail.com;
helo=mail-lb0-f182.google.com;
Received: from mail-lb0-f182.google.com ([209.85.217.182])
by sog-mx-2.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128)
(Exim 4.76) id 1WdEsQ-0001pw-PL
for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Thu, 24 Apr 2014 08:19:28 +0000
Received: by mail-lb0-f182.google.com with SMTP id l4so1746458lbv.13
for <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>;
Thu, 24 Apr 2014 01:19:20 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.112.52.104 with SMTP id s8mr213287lbo.7.1398327560139; Thu,
24 Apr 2014 01:19:20 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.112.89.68 with HTTP; Thu, 24 Apr 2014 01:19:20 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <CANEZrP0j0KoLUB+SE+W3fL8vTKay0niqoeQ38RKnU9cyGgvvYw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CANEZrP0szimdFSk23aMfO8p2Xtgfbm6kZ=x3rmdPDFUD73xHMg@mail.gmail.com>
<CAAS2fgTS65b0mfJakEA5s3xJHuWU2BDW8MbEVgMFMNz8YAmEiA@mail.gmail.com>
<CANEZrP15DDdfT+o5jVKMO=tGTvHYx53yzhXfaVyzq7imfwJsZQ@mail.gmail.com>
<CAE28kUSLXG0y350gMiwnv0CoOHUorMgLup9TG77Mjj+BJcuowA@mail.gmail.com>
<CANEZrP0j0KoLUB+SE+W3fL8vTKay0niqoeQ38RKnU9cyGgvvYw@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 24 Apr 2014 01:19:20 -0700
Message-ID: <CAAS2fgQV0=QfCWhwVh6-mw=eg9MDd1E21P_7rFAnGp0P43c1Fw@mail.gmail.com>
From: Gregory Maxwell <gmaxwell@gmail.com>
To: Mike Hearn <mike@plan99.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Spam-Score: -1.6 (-)
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
(gmaxwell[at]gmail.com)
-0.0 SPF_PASS SPF: sender matches SPF record
-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: 1WdEsQ-0001pw-PL
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: Thu, 24 Apr 2014 08:19:28 -0000
On Thu, Apr 24, 2014 at 12:58 AM, Mike Hearn <mike@plan99.net> wrote:
> The complexity overhead is trivial - we already used coinbase scriptSigs =
for
> voting on P2SH, I'm sure it'll be used for voting on other things in futu=
re
> too.
We use coinbase sigs to gauge the safety of enforcing a soft fork
several times and not just for P2SH, to determine when enforcement of
it will be decisive and not result in risking a partition in the
network that might permit transaction reversals. This is not voting.
As a feature decision mechanism his is a rather coercive thing because
it gives the highest hash-power bidders control even when their
interests may be rather thoroughly unaligned with population that owns
and uses bitcoin in general, but as a plain indicator of when its safe
to enforce a new rule (same mechanism, different motivation=E2=80=94 though=
a
point is that safe usage means using much more than 50% as the
threshold) it works pretty well.
> .... that's hugely complex and messy.
Yes, making really distributed systems that work in a complex world is
hard. It certantly would be /easier/ to just declare miners "trusted
parties" and require them to always collude to produce a single
consensus view of the world that is always honest and never
contradictory, except that it doesn't work. Because they aren't
individually trusted or even trustworthy.
> Why? Remember deleting coinbases with nothing more than a simple majority=
is
> already possible in the existing protocol and always has been.
Temporarily censoring transactions by orphaning otherwise valid blocks
that contain them for as long as you retain a majority is possible and
impossible to prevent in this architecture. This isn't the same as
deleting. Deleting suggests the common misconception that a majority
of miners can do anything they want.
|
