Received: from sog-mx-4.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.194] helo=mx.sourceforge.net) by sfs-ml-4.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76) (envelope-from ) id 1YscvU-0004Te-2w for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Wed, 13 May 2015 20:06:44 +0000 X-ACL-Warn: Received: from mail-la0-f45.google.com ([209.85.215.45]) by sog-mx-4.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128) (Exim 4.76) id 1YscvS-0002qY-PS for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Wed, 13 May 2015 20:06:44 +0000 Received: by labbd9 with SMTP id bd9so38841629lab.2 for ; Wed, 13 May 2015 13:06:36 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc:content-type; bh=59bcYK5kswxkxuk9QQcynVD3ozAngoBlXMkl6jOIRuI=; b=g3eheMwxr+apXHGtmzyHyOXCT4xy35fDF/31EMVE1AOeuWAivkksFvhZpg6QH2ioFq /CL8Sg5y/JEkBsy1HQI+XAf6YXtxxOP4p0d0CvF8cR3p/IKu7xsv6D3dCstowZ7TKH7i ZmFS+duKpe4f+4+7B/ghMak86cX3GVx2ZO4zuLxB1J1lzDpMcL9IeoGWi3O++tLs9k34 2RB0DKYhZ1pCKavgJxJUbyoc0LrgsMfAglgRA/zUB+gvddOZNYHL6aCfNjPqZXPHG6E2 cTZ3pptL3THQKiKOvb/bufd23xlZt2Nr/AY/Qn7PZK7pLFWt2ELW0OxXu4L+Xbm0XG+f m/jg== X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQmc83816mQyQ3CyXAtojfMF3De7URYnRu0RGdgFREUXzm3t9Wp22autLAWkT5c6DAorIx7t X-Received: by 10.112.132.9 with SMTP id oq9mr475830lbb.26.1431547596268; Wed, 13 May 2015 13:06:36 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.112.125.161 with HTTP; Wed, 13 May 2015 13:05:55 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: <5550D8BE.6070207@electrum.org> <5551F376.4050008@electrum.org> <555210AF.3090705@electrum.org> From: Pedro Worcel Date: Thu, 14 May 2015 08:05:55 +1200 Message-ID: To: Gavin Andresen Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=047d7b3a802cf47c0b0515fc2501 X-Spam-Score: 1.0 (+) X-Spam-Report: Spam Filtering performed by mx.sourceforge.net. See http://spamassassin.org/tag/ for more details. 1.0 HTML_MESSAGE BODY: HTML included in message X-Headers-End: 1YscvS-0002qY-PS Cc: Bitcoin Dev 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: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 13 May 2015 20:06:44 -0000 --047d7b3a802cf47c0b0515fc2501 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Thank you for your response, that does make sense. It's going to be interesting to follow what is going to happen! 2015-05-14 3:41 GMT+12:00 Gavin Andresen : > On Tue, May 12, 2015 at 7:48 PM, Adam Back wrote: > >> I think its fair to say no one knows how to make a consensus that >> works in a decentralised fashion that doesnt weaken the bitcoin >> security model without proof-of-work for now. >> > > Yes. > > >> I am presuming Gavin is just saying in the context of not pre-judging >> the future that maybe in the far future another innovation might be >> found (or alternatively maybe its not mathematically possible). >> > > Yes... or an alternative might be found that weakens the Bitcoin security > model by a small enough amount that it either doesn't matter or the > weakening is vastly overwhelmed by some other benefit. > > I'm influenced by the way the Internet works; packets addressed to > 74.125.226.67 reliably get to Google through a very decentralized system > that I'll freely admit I don't understand. Yes, a determined attacker can > re-route packets, but layers of security on top means re-routing packets > isn't enough to pull off profitable attacks. > > I think Bitcoin's proof-of-work might evolve in a similar way. Yes, you > might be able to 51% attack the POW, but layers of security on top of POW > will mean that won't be enough to pull off profitable attacks. > > > -- > -- > Gavin Andresen > > --047d7b3a802cf47c0b0515fc2501 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Thank you for your response, that does make sense. It's goi= ng to be interesting to follow what is going to happen!

2015-05-14 3:41 GMT+12:00= Gavin Andresen <gavinandresen@gmail.com>:
On Tue, May 12, 2015 at 7:48 PM, Adam B= ack <adam@cypherspace.org> wrote:
I t= hink its fair to say no one knows how to make a consensus that
works in a decentralised fashion that doesnt weaken the bitcoin
security model without proof-of-work for now.

Yes.
=C2=A0
= I am presuming Gavin is just saying in the context of not pre-judging
the future that maybe in the far future another innovation might be
found (or alternatively maybe its not mathematically possible).

Yes... or an alternative might be found tha= t weakens the Bitcoin security model by a small enough amount that it eithe= r doesn't matter or the weakening is vastly overwhelmed by some other b= enefit.

I'm influenced by the way the Internet= works; packets addressed to 74.125.226.67 reliably get to Google through a= very decentralized system that I'll freely admit I don't understan= d. Yes, a determined attacker can re-route packets, but layers of security = on top means re-routing packets isn't enough to pull off profitable att= acks.

I think Bitcoin's proof-of-work might ev= olve in a similar way. Yes, you might be able to 51% attack the POW, but la= yers of security on top of POW will mean that won't be enough to pull o= ff profitable attacks.


--
--
Gavin Andresen


--047d7b3a802cf47c0b0515fc2501--