MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CAJR7vkoq8Y_-fbdxN=--gF5wrGByr5oODc4FkTaCEvDSuP0whQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAJR7vkpRhNsQsem-nFkeubX04xx1y7aHwCENfg0d1266oOsXMw@mail.gmail.com>
	<Cwhn7YzwaDUZtOygDAgrU1UXjRPG-EiH3Fyz2c95gqOpNnNbiYL1NvhS28yK5wLJCnIqDaBrM6c574dY-O6_-bRjLIFmDe2NCxIuyV1w2dw=@protonmail.com>
	<CAJR7vkoq8Y_-fbdxN=--gF5wrGByr5oODc4FkTaCEvDSuP0whQ@mail.gmail.com>
From: =?UTF-8?B?Sm9yZ2UgVGltw7Nu?= <jtimon@jtimon.cc>
Date: Sat, 8 Apr 2017 18:27:48 +0200
Message-ID: <CABm2gDo+XreV1va2rrHrBCf9x-pcGWqjaQcn7ptRJ4jRE=N79g@mail.gmail.com>
To: Jimmy Song <jaejoon@gmail.com>,
	Bitcoin Dev <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=94eb2c1b113212f349054caa3948
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] A Small Modification to Segwit
Precedence: list

--94eb2c1b113212f349054caa3948
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8

On 8 Apr 2017 5:06 am, "Jimmy Song via bitcoin-dev" <
bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:

Praxeology Guy,

Why would the actual end users of Bitcoin (the long term and short term
> owners of bitcoins) who run fully verifying nodes want to change Bitcoin
> policy in order to make their money more vulnerable to 51% attack?
>

Certainly, if only one company made use of the extra nonce space, they
would have an advantage. But think of it this way, if some newer ASIC
optimization comes up, would you rather have a non-ASICBoosted hash rate to
defend with or an ASICBoosted hash rate? Certainly, the latter, being
higher will secure the Bitcoin network better against newer optimizations.


Why?

--94eb2c1b113212f349054caa3948
Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<div dir=3D"auto"><br><div class=3D"gmail_extra" dir=3D"auto"><br><div clas=
s=3D"gmail_quote">On 8 Apr 2017 5:06 am, &quot;Jimmy Song via bitcoin-dev&q=
uot; &lt;<a href=3D"mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org">bitcoin-d=
ev@lists.linuxfoundation.org</a>&gt; wrote:<br type=3D"attribution"><blockq=
uote class=3D"quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;=
padding-left:1ex"><div dir=3D"ltr"><div class=3D"gmail_extra">Praxeology Gu=
y,</div><div class=3D"gmail_extra"><br><div class=3D"gmail_quote"><div clas=
s=3D"quoted-text"><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .=
8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div>Why would the actual =
end users of Bitcoin (the long term and short term owners of bitcoins) who =
run fully verifying nodes want to change Bitcoin policy in order to make th=
eir money more vulnerable to 51% attack?</div></blockquote><div><br></div><=
/div><div>Certainly, if only one company made use of the extra nonce space,=
 they would have an advantage. But think of it this way, if some newer ASIC=
 optimization comes up, would you rather have a non-ASICBoosted hash rate t=
o defend with or an ASICBoosted hash rate? Certainly, the latter, being hig=
her will secure the Bitcoin network better against newer optimizations.</di=
v></div></div></div></blockquote></div></div><div dir=3D"auto"><br></div><d=
iv dir=3D"auto">Why?</div><div class=3D"gmail_extra" dir=3D"auto"></div></d=
iv>

--94eb2c1b113212f349054caa3948--