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-3.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.193]
helo=mx.sourceforge.net)
by sfs-ml-1.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76)
(envelope-from <mh.in.england@gmail.com>) id 1Wcym6-0001wT-WE
for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Wed, 23 Apr 2014 15:07:51 +0000
Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-3.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of gmail.com
designates 209.85.214.175 as permitted sender)
client-ip=209.85.214.175; envelope-from=mh.in.england@gmail.com;
helo=mail-ob0-f175.google.com;
Received: from mail-ob0-f175.google.com ([209.85.214.175])
by sog-mx-3.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128)
(Exim 4.76) id 1Wcym1-000767-K3
for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Wed, 23 Apr 2014 15:07:50 +0000
Received: by mail-ob0-f175.google.com with SMTP id wp4so1166545obc.34
for <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>;
Wed, 23 Apr 2014 08:07:40 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.60.16.103 with SMTP id f7mr42973119oed.8.1398265660151; Wed,
23 Apr 2014 08:07:40 -0700 (PDT)
Sender: mh.in.england@gmail.com
Received: by 10.76.96.180 with HTTP; Wed, 23 Apr 2014 08:07:40 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <5357D394.7010908@gmail.com>
References: <CANEZrP0szimdFSk23aMfO8p2Xtgfbm6kZ=x3rmdPDFUD73xHMg@mail.gmail.com>
<5357D394.7010908@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 23 Apr 2014 17:07:40 +0200
X-Google-Sender-Auth: 1bIt6oZCw1QQQzBjt5TvWGvaDnk
Message-ID: <CANEZrP0dxAOWxg8Nu9LqV1SGE1C1WD2m+EPhg3sFCnFQQVv4kQ@mail.gmail.com>
From: Mike Hearn <mike@plan99.net>
To: Justus Ranvier <justusranvier@gmail.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=089e0149c04ef9afe704f7b7174e
X-Spam-Score: -0.5 (/)
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
(mh.in.england[at]gmail.com)
-0.0 SPF_PASS SPF: sender matches SPF record
1.0 HTML_MESSAGE BODY: HTML included in message
0.1 DKIM_SIGNED Message has a DKIM or DK signature,
not necessarily valid
-0.1 DKIM_VALID Message has at least one valid DKIM or DK signature
X-Headers-End: 1Wcym1-000767-K3
Cc: Bitcoin Dev <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>
Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] Coinbase reallocation to discourage
Finney attacks
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, 23 Apr 2014 15:07:51 -0000
--089e0149c04ef9afe704f7b7174e
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
On Wed, Apr 23, 2014 at 4:52 PM, Justus Ranvier <justusranvier@gmail.com>wrote:
> If enough miners don't like a block that has been mined, they can all
> work to orphan it without any change to the protocol whatsoever.
>
As was already pointed out, yes. However this requires them to immediate
establish a majority consensus and be absolutely sure it really is the
majority. You suggest an out of band mechanism for that, but why is this
better than using the actual consensus mechanism you're trying to measure?
> Once you've changed the network such that it is no longer a machine
> that faithfully processes scripts
Bitcoin imposes far more rules than just execution of the scripting
language, many of which are entirely arbitrary and the result of
(controversial) human judgement, like the inflation schedule. You can't
claim Bitcoin implements only some kind of natural law.
--089e0149c04ef9afe704f7b7174e
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 W=
ed, Apr 23, 2014 at 4:52 PM, Justus Ranvier <span dir=3D"ltr"><<a href=
=3D"mailto:justusranvier@gmail.com" target=3D"_blank">justusranvier@gmail.c=
om</a>></span> wrote:<br>
<blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1p=
x #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div class=3D"">If enough miners don't l=
ike a block that has been mined, they can all<br></div>
work to orphan it without any change to the protocol whatsoever.<br></block=
quote><div><br></div><div>As was already pointed out, yes. However this req=
uires them to immediate establish a majority consensus and be absolutely su=
re it really is the majority. You suggest an out of band mechanism for that=
, but why is this better than using the actual consensus mechanism you'=
re trying to measure?</div>
<div>=C2=A0</div><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8=
ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">Once you've changed the=
network such that it is no longer a machine<br>
that faithfully processes scripts</blockquote><div><br></div><div>Bitcoin i=
mposes far more rules than just execution of the scripting language, many o=
f which are entirely arbitrary and the result of (controversial) human judg=
ement, like the inflation schedule. You can't claim Bitcoin implements =
only some kind of natural law.</div>
</div></div></div>
--089e0149c04ef9afe704f7b7174e--
|
