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
|
Received: from sog-mx-2.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.192]
helo=mx.sourceforge.net)
by sfs-ml-3.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76)
(envelope-from <mh.in.england@gmail.com>) id 1UDiDr-0006GR-73
for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Thu, 07 Mar 2013 21:19:31 +0000
Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-2.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of gmail.com
designates 209.85.219.45 as permitted sender)
client-ip=209.85.219.45; envelope-from=mh.in.england@gmail.com;
helo=mail-oa0-f45.google.com;
Received: from mail-oa0-f45.google.com ([209.85.219.45])
by sog-mx-2.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128)
(Exim 4.76) id 1UDiDq-0003FB-6l
for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Thu, 07 Mar 2013 21:19:31 +0000
Received: by mail-oa0-f45.google.com with SMTP id o6so1182892oag.4
for <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>;
Thu, 07 Mar 2013 13:19:24 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.60.14.226 with SMTP id s2mr26919740oec.124.1362691164857;
Thu, 07 Mar 2013 13:19:24 -0800 (PST)
Sender: mh.in.england@gmail.com
Received: by 10.76.86.169 with HTTP; Thu, 7 Mar 2013 13:19:24 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <20130307183035.GA9083@savin>
References: <20130307110018.GA7491@savin>
<CANEZrP0MHA_Mv37DSv=CLBWLHo_-ajRgNRd1-4EGJ2GZvTxiJQ@mail.gmail.com>
<20130307183035.GA9083@savin>
Date: Thu, 7 Mar 2013 22:19:24 +0100
X-Google-Sender-Auth: vZ7W0k86aYV1AOfo3AX-9HFXtuU
Message-ID: <CANEZrP3oHropYJ1zEXCw1QdtRimK_JxeohOh1yNkPxzZohcXnA@mail.gmail.com>
From: Mike Hearn <mike@plan99.net>
To: Peter Todd <pete@petertodd.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
X-Spam-Score: -1.5 (-)
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
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: 1UDiDq-0003FB-6l
Cc: Bitcoin Dev <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>
Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] Large-blocks and censorship
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, 07 Mar 2013 21:19:31 -0000
As an aside, there's a paper coming out in perhaps a few months that
describes a new way to provide Chaum-style privacy integrated with
Bitcoin, but without the use of blinding and without any need for
banks. It's quite smart, I was reviewing the paper this week.
Unfortunately the technique is too slow and too complicated to
actually integrate, but you'd probably get a kick out of it. It's
based on zero knowledge proofs. You can talk to Ian Miers if you like,
perhaps he'll send you a copy for review.
Back on topic.
This idea is not new. I proposed the idea of regulating miners to
freeze certain outputs two years ago:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=printpage;topic=5979.0
I concluded that it was not a real risk because both mining and
transactions can be done anonymously.
Your argument rests on the assumption that you can't mine large blocks
anonymously because Tor doesn't scale. Even if we go along with the
idea that Tor is the only way to escape regulation (it's not), you
should maybe take up its inability to move data sufficiently fast with
the developers. Given that they routinely push two gigabits/second
today, with an entirely volunteer run network, I think they'll be
surprised to learn that their project is doomed to never be usable by
miners.
|
