Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-2.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of petertodd.org
	designates 62.13.148.107 as permitted sender)
	client-ip=62.13.148.107; envelope-from=pete@petertodd.org;
	helo=outmail148107.authsmtp.com; 
Date: Sun, 21 Dec 2014 10:32:41 -0500
From: Peter Todd <pete@petertodd.org>
To: Mark Friedenbach <mark@friedenbach.org>
Message-ID: <20141221153241.GC3927@savin.petertodd.org>
References: <20141212090551.GA8259@muck>
	<20141220144800.GA26284@savin.petertodd.org>
	<CAOG=w-vrHPY1aCNndmoW9QyCh9XnWyv8uZn2PyjZ6rNg2MoSSw@mail.gmail.com>
	<20141221055220.GB8255@savin.petertodd.org>
	<CAOG=w-tZke--6OsqNjJhE9SOdCwdZYZM8iz1VBTFziegt9UZWw@mail.gmail.com>
	<20141221070154.GD8255@savin.petertodd.org>
	<CAOG=w-s1_VXJAKxBpMOK=B50qnHjxSe4J=vwwSfFPRz0_Cb9rA@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha256;
	protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="ncSAzJYg3Aa9+CRW"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <CAOG=w-s1_VXJAKxBpMOK=B50qnHjxSe4J=vwwSfFPRz0_Cb9rA@mail.gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15)
Cc: Bitcoin Development <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>
Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] The relationship between
 Proof-of-Publication and Anti-Replay Oracles
Precedence: list


--ncSAzJYg3Aa9+CRW
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Sun, Dec 21, 2014 at 03:11:32PM +0800, Mark Friedenbach wrote:
> On Sun, Dec 21, 2014 at 3:01 PM, Peter Todd <pete@petertodd.org> wrote:
>=20
> > Right, so Freimarkets is deliberately insecure.
> >
>=20
> Please define your terms, particularly what your security requirements are
> here. In the architecture we created users remain in control of their fun=
ds
> at all times, and miners have incentives to mine the host chain. So I don=
't
> know what insecurity you are possibly talking about, and seem unwilling to
> elaborate.

Sybil attacks leading to front-running.

You may not be aware of this, but not being able to get the best price
due to a sybil attack *is* considered to be a security issue by the
users of these systems.

> I have read your posting and engaged with you in that very thread, where I
> point out that global ordering of bids & asks is a superfluous requiremen=
t.

It's superfluous until you have real businesses actually using these
systems.

> As to front-running, there is a distinct difference between centralized
> systems where front-running is essentially theft, and a distributed block
> chain system with actual costs paid by fees captured from the spread.

Among other things, ever noticed how this incentivises people to sybil
attack the entire system? Not good.

--=20
'peter'[:-1]@petertodd.org
000000000000000012f5511833a1304a72a754df8afef26f5712438bcc40826b

--ncSAzJYg3Aa9+CRW
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc"
Content-Description: Digital signature

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----

iQGrBAEBCACVBQJUlugVXhSAAAAAABUAQGJsb2NraGFzaEBiaXRjb2luLm9yZzAw
MDAwMDAwMDAwMDAwMDAxMmY1NTExODMzYTEzMDRhNzJhNzU0ZGY4YWZlZjI2ZjU3
MTI0MzhiY2M0MDgyNmIvFIAAAAAAFQARcGthLWFkZHJlc3NAZ251cGcub3JncGV0
ZUBwZXRlcnRvZC5vcmcACgkQJIFAPaXwkfvUKQf8DBIJzp0KRhj4Kc6bVq4mK8/M
7im5YTW8ymAGkJLWOBtw1ZOYmBd0JhoqUnh3Jci8JLYIgB3JYfx4msZ+qzliVKdI
+btbnPdcg2YPMY18UEAr53T38AhbkSQH0pHkoRQmhE8QTIv/rsgy6MDN0Tn2pcXH
cznWSnHU74nSzD2JOxaaVyNSjOK0naqcLn9n4awFIOvqyyOuJtig48hXaK6EQxSj
x+IiJedXdjRBjS26QwWwHARRHmmHVlgG901Dg2qdmYbfZuk7zBwi1Kh90z83shse
mvojM6+1OnUtPYdfsoeCZ4e71vad4e2MM9fDyvJqVtRMBGtD03ESPRpEwdBvmQ==
=Lq64
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--ncSAzJYg3Aa9+CRW--