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
|
Received: from sog-mx-3.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.193]
helo=mx.sourceforge.net)
by sfs-ml-2.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76)
(envelope-from <gmaxwell@gmail.com>) id 1Yxjix-00004t-Sc
for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Wed, 27 May 2015 22:22:55 +0000
Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-3.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of gmail.com
designates 209.85.213.182 as permitted sender)
client-ip=209.85.213.182; envelope-from=gmaxwell@gmail.com;
helo=mail-ig0-f182.google.com;
Received: from mail-ig0-f182.google.com ([209.85.213.182])
by sog-mx-3.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128)
(Exim 4.76) id 1Yxjiv-000744-SI
for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Wed, 27 May 2015 22:22:55 +0000
Received: by igbjd9 with SMTP id jd9so10423086igb.1
for <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>;
Wed, 27 May 2015 15:22:48 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.107.7.84 with SMTP id 81mr44422100ioh.28.1432765368454; Wed,
27 May 2015 15:22:48 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.107.147.213 with HTTP; Wed, 27 May 2015 15:22:48 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <CANEZrP0ZdGp6Punh34mNMgaukHDQvMwDM_KEEsnuHn8Fj3Pt2Q@mail.gmail.com>
References: <5550D8BE.6070207@electrum.org>
<CANEZrP2x+fBitgcvoaC2qBbJS-Ek_hgS3ZGM55UtURKc-oDZMQ@mail.gmail.com>
<CANEZrP0ZdGp6Punh34mNMgaukHDQvMwDM_KEEsnuHn8Fj3Pt2Q@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 27 May 2015 22:22:48 +0000
Message-ID: <CAAS2fgTdt9zY8KeOaob+idse1j9eraazBo5HukxJ8nkC_h=Zfw@mail.gmail.com>
From: Gregory Maxwell <gmaxwell@gmail.com>
To: Mike Hearn <mike@plan99.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
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
0.0 AWL AWL: Adjusted score from AWL reputation of From: address
X-Headers-End: 1Yxjiv-000744-SI
Cc: Bitcoin Development <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>
Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] Long-term mining incentives
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: Wed, 27 May 2015 22:22:55 -0000
On Wed, May 27, 2015 at 9:59 PM, Mike Hearn <mike@plan99.net> wrote:
> I wrote an article that explains the hashing assurance contract concept:
>
> https://medium.com/@octskyward/hashing-7d04a887acc8
>
> (it doesn't contain an in depth protocol description)
The prior (and seemingly this) assurance contract proposals pay the
miners who mines a chain supportive of your interests and miners whom
mine against your interests identically.
There is already a mechanism built into Bitcoin for paying for
security which doesn't have this problem, and which mitigates the
common action problem of people just sitting around for other people
to pay for security: transaction fees. Fixing the problem with
assurance contracts effectively makes them end up working like
transaction fees in any case. Considering the near-failure in just
keeping development funded, I'm not sure where the believe this this
model will be workable comes from; in particular unlike a lighthouse
(but like development) security is ongoing and not primarily a fixed
one time cost. I note that many existing crowdfunding platforms
(including your own) do not do ongoing costs with this kind of binary
contract.
Also work reminding people that mining per-contract is a long
identified existential risk to Bitcoin which has been seeing more
analysis lately:
http://www.jbonneau.com/doc/BFGKN14-bitcoin_bribery.pdf
|
