1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
|
Received: from sog-mx-1.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.191]
helo=mx.sourceforge.net)
by sfs-ml-1.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76)
(envelope-from <hozer@grid.coop>) id 1WRreF-0001CS-Lu
for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Sun, 23 Mar 2014 23:17:47 +0000
X-ACL-Warn:
Received: from nl.grid.coop ([50.7.166.116])
by sog-mx-1.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76)
id 1WRreD-0002cL-5H for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Sun, 23 Mar 2014 23:17:47 +0000
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) (uid 1000)
by nl.grid.coop with local; Sun, 23 Mar 2014 18:17:37 -0500
id 000000000006A343.00000000532F6B91.0000132B
Date: Sun, 23 Mar 2014 18:17:37 -0500
From: Troy Benjegerdes <hozer@hozed.org>
To: Jorge =?iso-8859-1?Q?Tim=F3n?= <jtimon@monetize.io>
Message-ID: <20140323231737.GM3180@nl.grid.coop>
References: <20140322084702.GA13436@savin>
<CAC1+kJNh=7yhmAdFHFv9VBJOOMhen6nwr=U9peG2J_7EovPqxA@mail.gmail.com>
<20140322193435.GC6047@savin>
<CAC1+kJNOuCpUPDiaBNR40T12W3MwUXpXp+PCTLhHyQwyc+8BqA@mail.gmail.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <CAC1+kJNOuCpUPDiaBNR40T12W3MwUXpXp+PCTLhHyQwyc+8BqA@mail.gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15)
X-Spam-Score: -0.5 (/)
X-Spam-Report: Spam Filtering performed by mx.sourceforge.net.
See http://spamassassin.org/tag/ for more details.
-0.5 RP_MATCHES_RCVD Envelope sender domain matches handover relay
domain
X-Headers-End: 1WRreD-0002cL-5H
Cc: bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net
Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] Handling miner adoption gracefully for
embedded consensus systems via double-spending/replace-by-fee
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: Sun, 23 Mar 2014 23:17:47 -0000
> > Right, but there's also a lot of the community who thinks
> > proof-of-publication applications are bad and should be discouraged. I
> > argued before that the way OP_RETURN was being deployed didn't actually
> > give any reason to use it vs. other data encoding methods.
> >
> > Unfortunately underlying all this is a real ignorance about how Bitcoin
> > actually works and what proof-of-publication actually is:
>
> I understand that proof of publication is not the same thing as
> regular timestamping, but requiring permanent storage in the
> blockchain is not the only way you can implement proof of publication.
> Mark Friedenbach proposes this:
>
> Store hashes, or a hash root, and soft-fork that blocks are only
> accepted if (a) the data tree is provided, or (b) sufficient work is
> built on it and/or sufficient time has passed
>
> This way full nodes can ignore the published data until is sufficiently buried.
>
> > I think we're just going to have to agree to disagree on our
> > interpretations of the economics with regard to attacking merge-mined
> > chains. Myself, I'm very, very wary of systems that have poor security
> > against economically irrational attackers regardless of how good the
> > security is, in theory, against economically rational ones.
>
> The attacker was of course economically irrational in my previous
> example for which you didn't have any complain. So I think we can
> agree that a merged mined separated chain is more secure than a
> non-merged mined separated chain and that attacking a merged mined
> chain is not free.
> By not being clear on this you're indirectly promoting non-merged
> mined altchains as a better option than merged mined altchains, which
> is what I don't think is responsible on your part.
>
I can't speak for Peter, but *I* am currently of the opinion that non-merged
mined altchains using memory-hard proof-of-work are a far better option than
sha-256 merged-mined altchains. This is not a popular position on this list,
and I would like to respectfully disagree, but still collaborate on all the
other things where bitcoin-core *is* the best-in-class code available.
A truly 'distributed' system must support multiple alchains, and multiple
proof-of-work hash algorithms, and probably support proof-of-stake as well.
If sha-256 is the only game in town the only advantage over the federal
reserve is I can at least audit the code that controls the money supply,
but it's not in any way distributed if the hash power is concentrated
among 5-10 major pools and 5-10 sha-256 asic vendors.
I find it very irresponsible for Bitcoiners to on one hand extol the virtues
of distributed systems and then in the same message claim any discussion
about alternate chains as 'off-topic'.
If bitcoin-core is for *distributed systems*, then all the different altcoins
with different hash algorithms should be viable topics for discussion.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Troy Benjegerdes 'da hozer' hozer@hozed.org
7 elements earth::water::air::fire::mind::spirit::soul grid.coop
Never pick a fight with someone who buys ink by the barrel,
nor try buy a hacker who makes money by the megahash
|
