Received: from sog-mx-3.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.193]
	helo=mx.sourceforge.net)
	by sfs-ml-3.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76)
	(envelope-from <adam.back@gmail.com>) id 1UcaDh-0005YS-8V
	for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
	Wed, 15 May 2013 11:50:09 +0000
Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-3.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of gmail.com
	designates 209.85.215.175 as permitted sender)
	client-ip=209.85.215.175; envelope-from=adam.back@gmail.com;
	helo=mail-ea0-f175.google.com; 
Received: from mail-ea0-f175.google.com ([209.85.215.175])
	by sog-mx-3.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128)
	(Exim 4.76) id 1UcaDg-0002zn-Fh
	for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
	Wed, 15 May 2013 11:50:09 +0000
Received: by mail-ea0-f175.google.com with SMTP id h10so841010eaj.20
	for <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>;
	Wed, 15 May 2013 04:50:02 -0700 (PDT)
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
	d=google.com; s=20120113;
	h=x-received:date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references
	:mime-version:content-type:content-disposition:in-reply-to
	:user-agent:x-hashcash:x-hashcash:x-hashcash;
	bh=/2IGc7kCtUV16C2DfeqV8Df+ctITbo3JUH5Yk1R7OX4=;
	b=RLnsbK/8A0QUMcAdzLBTQZqEygUElc34DEUuuVGhoTMn9DlufztTc1haSZUT25PZ0p
	4v4pcL1G64bKMLBrp+8i3Py+yZxvwK4SbxGzUBe5iIpYtSTvKZdxt8d92NTQ31UusAFQ
	cUDSCbjTvPDW9q7Xkb5g2xHYiUOgy2kDeLZ3H17wyvm15AxxyHv34LXmzLSLbZoTthfI
	CMUiYVw/nDQyZad2F36delSYxpubarAIfiWR2quSsqdUjmWuQeTsW+4dn+NBnzYYR+cr
	NFgpnBrf1wB4ucKopzUtUvNEkyoQBo9ALU+vXeVGS7+BQKXfDbh+iAtQYOawTCOiWtWU
	w7DQ==
X-Received: by 10.14.5.5 with SMTP id 5mr102993359eek.21.1368618602086;
	Wed, 15 May 2013 04:50:02 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from netbook (c83-90.i07-21.onvol.net. [92.251.83.90])
	by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id n7sm3487759eeo.0.2013.05.15.04.50.00
	for <multiple recipients>
	(version=TLSv1.1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128);
	Wed, 15 May 2013 04:50:01 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by netbook (Postfix, from userid 1000)
	id A0B912E04CB; Wed, 15 May 2013 13:49:58 +0200 (CEST)
Received: by flare (hashcash-sendmail, from uid 1000);
	Wed, 15 May 2013 13:49:57 +0200
Date: Wed, 15 May 2013 13:49:56 +0200
From: Adam Back <adam@cypherspace.org>
To: Peter Todd <pete@petertodd.org>
Message-ID: <20130515114956.GA5863@netbook.cypherspace.org>
References: <20130514115151.GA21600@netbook.cypherspace.org>
	<20130514140902.GA22447@netbook.cypherspace.org>
	<20130515102509.GA3401@netbook.cypherspace.org>
	<20130515111906.GA26020@savin>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20130515111906.GA26020@savin>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15)
X-Hashcash: 1:20:130515:pete@petertodd.org::NVCPtglmb9muqfBZ:0000000000000000000
	0000000000000000000000001EBZ
X-Hashcash: 1:20:130515:bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net::n718vnr63uBLI
	S7k:00000000000000000000722X
X-Hashcash: 1:20:130515:adam@cypherspace.org::ahpLk4zPhzHvnjqP:00000000000000000
	0000000000000000000000000gOQ
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
	(adam.back[at]gmail.com)
	-0.0 SPF_PASS               SPF: sender matches SPF record
X-Headers-End: 1UcaDg-0002zn-Fh
Cc: Bitcoin-Dev <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>
Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] blind symmetric commitment for stronger
 byzantine voting resilience (Re: bitcoin taint & unilateral revocability)
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, 15 May 2013 11:50:09 -0000

On Wed, May 15, 2013 at 07:19:06AM -0400, Peter Todd wrote:
>Protocols aren't set in stone - any attacker that controls enough
>hashing power to pose a 51% attack can simply demand that you use a
>Bitcoin client modified [to facilitate evaluation of his policy]

Protocol voting is a vote per user policy preference, not a CPU vote, which
is the point.  Current bitcoin protocol is vulnerable to hard to prove
arbitrary policies being imposable by a quorum of > 50% miners.  The blind
commitment proposal fixes that, so even an 99% quorum cant easily impose
policies, which leaves the weaker protocol vote attack as the remaining
avenue of attack.  That is a significant qualitative improvement.

The feasibility of protocol voting attacks is an open question, but you
might want to consider the seeming unstoppability of p2p protocols for a
hint.

Adam