Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-3.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of gmail.com
	designates 209.85.215.54 as permitted sender)
	client-ip=209.85.215.54; envelope-from=gavinandresen@gmail.com;
	helo=mail-la0-f54.google.com; 
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CALqxMTGebNMARgps9mqxDSOw0cX9aeZZim82g8a4vE6sCPHq-g@mail.gmail.com>
References: <5550D8BE.6070207@electrum.org>
	<ce3d34c92efd1cf57326e4679550944e@national.shitposting.agency>
	<CABsx9T1VgxEJWxrYTs+2hXGnGrSLGJ6mVcAexjXLvK7Vu+e3EA@mail.gmail.com>
	<5551F376.4050008@electrum.org>
	<CABsx9T1h7p3hDr7ty43uxsYs-oNRpndzg=dowST2tXtogxRm2g@mail.gmail.com>
	<555210AF.3090705@electrum.org>
	<CABsx9T3AxM3et7hgXx3+Rn3BvhQkF-Cn797sHcyztkMpD1UQmA@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAPS+U98sh6BmuGHWOffrmTpaM3CNfhBUWdmgACb9++jU6M1fmQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<CALqxMTGebNMARgps9mqxDSOw0cX9aeZZim82g8a4vE6sCPHq-g@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 13 May 2015 11:41:16 -0400
Message-ID: <CABsx9T0K3xQUSY26VYoJzyAGkqCfRL_xnkQUrv7M-HpOvpio5w@mail.gmail.com>
From: Gavin Andresen <gavinandresen@gmail.com>
To: Adam Back <adam@cypherspace.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a1133b1c4139beb0515f871d1
Cc: Bitcoin Dev <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>
Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] Long-term mining incentives
Precedence: list

--001a1133b1c4139beb0515f871d1
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8

On Tue, May 12, 2015 at 7:48 PM, Adam Back <adam@cypherspace.org> 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

--001a1133b1c4139beb0515f871d1
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">On T=
ue, May 12, 2015 at 7:48 PM, Adam Back <span dir=3D"ltr">&lt;<a href=3D"mai=
lto:adam@cypherspace.org" target=3D"_blank">adam@cypherspace.org</a>&gt;</s=
pan> wrote:<br><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0px 0px 0p=
x 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-lef=
t-style:solid;padding-left:1ex">I think its fair to say no one knows how to=
 make a consensus that<br>
works in a decentralised fashion that doesnt weaken the bitcoin<br>
security model without proof-of-work for now.<br></blockquote><div><br></di=
v><div>Yes.</div><div>=C2=A0</div><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=
=3D"margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(20=
4,204,204);border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex">I am presuming Gavin i=
s just saying in the context of not pre-judging<br>
the future that maybe in the far future another innovation might be<br>
found (or alternatively maybe its not mathematically possible).<br></blockq=
uote><div><br></div><div>Yes... or an alternative might be found that weake=
ns the Bitcoin security model by a small enough amount that it either doesn=
&#39;t matter or the weakening is vastly overwhelmed by some other benefit.=
</div><div><br></div><div>I&#39;m influenced by the way the Internet works;=
 packets addressed to 74.125.226.67 reliably get to Google through a very d=
ecentralized system that I&#39;ll freely admit I don&#39;t understand. Yes,=
 a determined attacker can re-route packets, but layers of security on top =
means re-routing packets isn&#39;t enough to pull off profitable attacks.</=
div><div><br></div><div>I think Bitcoin&#39;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&#39;t be enough to pull off prof=
itable attacks.</div></div><div><br></div><div><br></div>-- <br><div class=
=3D"gmail_signature">--<br>Gavin Andresen<br></div><div class=3D"gmail_sign=
ature"><br></div>
</div></div>

--001a1133b1c4139beb0515f871d1--