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
|
Return-Path: <gacrux@gmail.com>
Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org
[172.17.192.35])
by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id BA44972A
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Fri, 24 Jul 2015 01:17:57 +0000 (UTC)
X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6
Received: from mail-wi0-f170.google.com (mail-wi0-f170.google.com
[209.85.212.170])
by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 40ACE12A
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Fri, 24 Jul 2015 01:17:57 +0000 (UTC)
Received: by wicmv11 with SMTP id mv11so45571410wic.0
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Thu, 23 Jul 2015 18:17:56 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113;
h=user-agent:in-reply-to:references:mime-version
:content-transfer-encoding:content-type:subject:from:date:to:cc
:message-id; bh=UlLLSG9RR/qoLeRnXVfUGtTXNprvFNQ0/aH0Ybus6PY=;
b=SpBzYeN0qTI0PlE/UXpdxQ2csgMaoiNtg42H+SMdXj79FnjLXgY7kjX+Wi/A61muzI
oeFzubXu8hhaG08N/AtovOcZbKJLxP2nVNuoqokrPr70fz1QXTPgwgyyJR+xnaUb/nbq
UFYh29Zx8LHBKpBcM3kAXoaQsIAKUCXJTtQ0LHRXwFm83DsMNzumTHzcO41D9ou/RyYJ
OV0h5Kq9EfEL1jPs9DjVqZWANAsTwwTxyBi+elsnCbszDU+3mecaI7gMG1qaZSCl6xdG
z177cV3UGljRwjs98/RprNewcdwmOMmVjIs6uH8XfExyAAscX6uui0KX6wmjdmLmZgeQ
Xo7w==
X-Received: by 10.180.10.200 with SMTP id k8mr1997568wib.5.1437700676095;
Thu, 23 Jul 2015 18:17:56 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [10.100.178.156] (tor-exit1.arbitrary.ch. [78.46.51.124])
by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id
ec19sm5652338wic.0.2015.07.23.18.17.50
(version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128);
Thu, 23 Jul 2015 18:17:54 -0700 (PDT)
User-Agent: K-9 Mail for Android
In-Reply-To: <CAE-z3OWZGsSS2s1OZU5ScH7C4BcOtCb9mcz62TA7HZQe_=y0uA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <20150723162321.Horde.bphh__8AhyXa_m-YAYpiyw1@server47.web-hosting.com>
<CAE-z3OWZGsSS2s1OZU5ScH7C4BcOtCb9mcz62TA7HZQe_=y0uA@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset=UTF-8
From: Gareth Williams <gacrux@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 2015 11:17:34 +1000
To: Tier Nolan <tier.nolan@gmail.com>,
Tier Nolan via bitcoin-dev <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
Message-ID: <CAB8D56D-58B0-4FC7-BD40-A1C613D8EBD6@gmail.com>
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.7 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED,
DKIM_VALID, DKIM_VALID_AU, FREEMAIL_FROM,
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@lists.linuxfoundation.org"
<bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] BIP draft: Hardfork bit
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: Fri, 24 Jul 2015 01:17:57 -0000
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA512
>I don't understand the situation here. Is the assumption of a group of
>miners suddenly switching (for example, they realise that they didn't
>intend to support the new rules)?
Or they're economically rational miners, and a large difficulty decrease on the original chain, without an equally large decrease in the value of original chain tokens, has made it profitable to switch?
It's dangerous to assume all miners will continue to support the side they have initially signaled. They're only invested in the chain they mine for a short time (until coinbase maturity.)
If both sides if a fork retain value you'd expect mining to redistribute itself WRT short term profitability at every difficulty adjustment, irrespective of initially signaled support for the fork.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: APG v1.1.1
iQFABAEBCgAqBQJVsZIuIxxHYXJldGggV2lsbGlhbXMgPGdhY3J1eEBnbWFpbC5j
b20+AAoJEEY5w2E3jkVEN7YIAIlgaAahHCssIEXYzqB1gRKYRP4fPsq8NtOMrkki
dc1gfKmprlPDShFvu2Hn5L8amP51ouRpmDSJwNyU//1DyU5p1tcWTAtkHr6SY7TY
uJtcPMM03BUD2i3rXSY4FbpWn8aOoUnQrkYFhx5Y/Aru+l47C0I5KF4fgMag7FhI
RxkTFylvq7uWvu0QCUkVh1MgohNxMqIGAvE5t8yoj5LxrNzOq95TcOGwFngWCdJM
a5BADFjq7v4j/+cP748ZTPcLUusTQTwEuIsCIhpwwiKADsy1FKjmAdHhKTff/6wn
cpNYvwimKNSSESCwzAnxekaJCTXpEOWQV7/6FO9vJbTMKw8=
=/hJk
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
|
