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
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
184
185
186
187
188
189
190
|
Received: from sog-mx-1.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.191]
helo=mx.sourceforge.net)
by sfs-ml-1.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76)
(envelope-from <mh.in.england@gmail.com>) id 1YLv8o-0007ZS-JS
for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Thu, 12 Feb 2015 14:53:18 +0000
Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-1.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of gmail.com
designates 74.125.82.52 as permitted sender)
client-ip=74.125.82.52; envelope-from=mh.in.england@gmail.com;
helo=mail-wg0-f52.google.com;
Received: from mail-wg0-f52.google.com ([74.125.82.52])
by sog-mx-1.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128)
(Exim 4.76) id 1YLv8m-0005vm-42
for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Thu, 12 Feb 2015 14:53:18 +0000
Received: by mail-wg0-f52.google.com with SMTP id x12so729692wgg.11
for <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>;
Thu, 12 Feb 2015 06:53:10 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.180.78.4 with SMTP id x4mr6987043wiw.86.1423752788415; Thu,
12 Feb 2015 06:53:08 -0800 (PST)
Sender: mh.in.england@gmail.com
Received: by 10.194.188.11 with HTTP; Thu, 12 Feb 2015 06:53:08 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <CAAt2M1_dot=3vU6DbvOMc1F9LN7_JWd=oMr=KiBhNy0WEpTWUw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <20150212064719.GA6563@savin.petertodd.org>
<CANEZrP2uVT_UqJbzyQcEbiS78T68Jj2cH7OGXv5QtYiCwArDdA@mail.gmail.com>
<CAAt2M1-eogn58zC_eAs4qD4-1GaY4wtuXLoSJ-UEZGKgdXGFyg@mail.gmail.com>
<CANEZrP2YJxwVEocNXjc5cadcq6Wwed7vTLh_4zEX2ct7bTCz5g@mail.gmail.com>
<CAAt2M19UinurnQQVJWbR_UcSmCBsdFyksnhTfL4ESDMfny+UQQ@mail.gmail.com>
<CANEZrP3+zpMsccnR1e48iwMyQFtP2yNZwseRvCmHrhZFQymycA@mail.gmail.com>
<CAAt2M1_dot=3vU6DbvOMc1F9LN7_JWd=oMr=KiBhNy0WEpTWUw@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 12 Feb 2015 15:53:08 +0100
X-Google-Sender-Auth: nf1bLvrWlRu-byfD0IiGakSN4oM
Message-ID: <CANEZrP0z3KG-d+91YDe-jj2d3WWPOrVqCStzLoHpNP=RgXpnyA@mail.gmail.com>
From: Mike Hearn <mike@plan99.net>
To: Natanael <natanael.l@gmail.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=f46d043bdf5e339c0c050ee547e5
X-Spam-Score: -0.5 (/)
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
1.0 HTML_MESSAGE BODY: HTML included in message
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: 1YLv8m-0005vm-42
Cc: Bitcoin Dev <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>
Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] replace-by-fee v0.10.0rc4
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, 12 Feb 2015 14:53:18 -0000
--f46d043bdf5e339c0c050ee547e5
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
>
> > So you're just arguing that a notary is different to a miner, without
> spelling out exactly why.
>
I'm afraid I still don't understand why you think notaries would build long
term businesses but miners wouldn't, in this model.
I think you are saying because notaries have identity, brand awareness and
because they have big up front bonds, that means they will be trustworthy.
Well, sure. It's the same model governments use and is why being a money
transmitter in the USA is so difficult: you need to put up large sums of
money as collateral and have your fingerprints taken 48 times. *Then* you
can start advertising to get customers!
The reason mining is such a nice model is it doesn't have these sorts of
requirements.
> As notaries can be small operations ..... [snip] ...... (almost every
> large organization in the world have some unallocated funds somewhere).
>
Which is it? Are notaries small operations or large operations?
I think exploring new consensus models with semi-trusted notaries is
interesting, but it's not Bitcoin.
> Depending on that which isn't guaranteed is baaaad, and breaking other
> people's assumptions is by itself NOT an attack if there never was a
> guarantee or even as little as an implicit understanding it is safe.
>
Please don't try and apply this logic in the real world :( Rephrased:
"*That's a nice house. I noticed it's made of wood. I'm going to start
fires until it burns down, because there is no guarantee your house won't
burn down in future and it's important you understand that wooden houses
aren't safe. Really I'm just doing you a favour*."
Don't get me wrong. I'm all for what *you're* doing - please do continue to
research and explore alternative trust configurations! This is helpful and
useful work. Perhaps we will find something that solves the burger problem
in a way that satisfies everyone.
I'm really not a fan of Peter's approach, which is "hey let's try and cause
as many problems as possible to try and prove a point, without having
created any solutions". Replace-by-fee-scorched-earth doesn't work and
isn't a solution. Miners can easily cut payment fraudsters in on the stolen
money, and as they'd need to distribute custom double-spending wallets to
make the scheme work it'd be very easy to do.
> Your also ssume people will expect the Bitcoin network to keep zero-conf
> safe forever and that Bitcoin valuation is tied to that. Given the options
> available and current state of things, I'm assuming that's wrong.
>
Why? You think ability to make payments in a few seconds is some irrelevant
curiousity?
Let's put it this way. If BitPay's business model evaporates tomorrow,
along with all the merchants they support, do you think that'd have any
effect on Bitcoin's value? If not, why not?
--f46d043bdf5e339c0c050ee547e5
Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
<div dir=3D"ltr"><div class=3D"gmail_extra"><div class=3D"gmail_quote"><blo=
ckquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #c=
cc solid;padding-left:1ex"><p dir=3D"ltr"><span class=3D"">> So you'=
re just arguing that a notary is different to a miner, without spelling out=
exactly why.</span></p></blockquote><div>I'm afraid I still don't =
understand why you think notaries would build long term businesses but mine=
rs wouldn't, in this model.</div><div><br></div><div>I think you are sa=
ying because notaries have identity, brand awareness and because they have =
big up front bonds, that means they will be trustworthy.</div><div><br></di=
v><div>Well, sure. It's the same model governments use and is why being=
a money transmitter in the USA is so difficult: you need to put up large s=
ums of money as collateral and have your fingerprints taken 48 times. <i>Th=
en</i>=C2=A0you can start advertising to get customers!<br></div><div><br><=
/div><div>The reason mining is such a nice model is it doesn't have the=
se sorts of requirements.</div><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"m=
argin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><p dir=3D"ltr=
">As notaries can be small operations ..... [snip] ...... (almost every lar=
ge organization in the world have some unallocated funds somewhere).</p></b=
lockquote><div>Which is it? Are notaries small operations or large operatio=
ns?=C2=A0</div><div><br></div><div>I think exploring new consensus models w=
ith semi-trusted notaries is interesting, but it's not Bitcoin.</div><b=
lockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px =
#ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<p dir=3D"ltr">Depending on that which isn't guaranteed is baaaad, and =
breaking other people's assumptions is by itself NOT an attack if there=
never was a guarantee or even as little as an implicit understanding it is=
safe.<br></p></blockquote><div>Please don't try and apply this logic i=
n the real world :( Rephrased:</div><div><br></div><div>"<i>That's=
a nice house. I noticed it's made of wood. I'm going to start fire=
s until it burns down, because there is no guarantee your house won't b=
urn down in future and it's important you understand that wooden houses=
aren't safe. Really I'm just doing you a favour</i>."</div><d=
iv><br></div><div>Don't get me wrong. I'm all for what <i>you'r=
e</i>=C2=A0doing - please do continue to research and explore alternative t=
rust configurations! This is helpful and useful work. Perhaps we will find =
something that solves the burger problem in a way that satisfies everyone.<=
/div><div><br></div><div>I'm really not a fan of Peter's approach, =
which is "hey let's try and cause as many problems as possible to =
try and prove a point, without having created any solutions". Replace-=
by-fee-scorched-earth doesn't work and isn't a solution. Miners can=
easily cut payment fraudsters in on the stolen money, and as they'd ne=
ed to distribute custom double-spending wallets to make the scheme work it&=
#39;d be very easy to do.</div><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"m=
argin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><p dir=3D"ltr=
"></p>
<p dir=3D"ltr">Your also ssume people will expect the Bitcoin network to ke=
ep zero-conf safe forever and that Bitcoin valuation is tied to that. Given=
the options available and current state of things, I'm assuming that&#=
39;s wrong.</p></blockquote><div>Why? You think ability to make payments in=
a few seconds is some irrelevant curiousity?</div><div><br></div><div>Let&=
#39;s put it this way. If BitPay's business model evaporates tomorrow, =
along with all the merchants they support, do you think that'd have any=
effect on Bitcoin's value? If not, why not?</div></div></div></div>
--f46d043bdf5e339c0c050ee547e5--
|
