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
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
|
Return-Path: <corey3@gmail.com>
Received: from smtp1.osuosl.org (smtp1.osuosl.org [IPv6:2605:bc80:3010::138])
by lists.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D54B4C002D
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Thu, 7 Jul 2022 22:02:21 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1])
by smtp1.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9C78E813CC
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Thu, 7 Jul 2022 22:02:21 +0000 (UTC)
DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 smtp1.osuosl.org 9C78E813CC
Authentication-Results: smtp1.osuosl.org;
dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com header.i=@gmail.com
header.a=rsa-sha256 header.s=20210112 header.b=hAGttTpo
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at osuosl.org
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 0.051
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.051 tagged_above=-999 required=5
tests=[BAYES_40=-0.001, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1,
DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1,
FREEMAIL_ENVFROM_END_DIGIT=0.25, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001,
HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001,
SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from smtp1.osuosl.org ([127.0.0.1])
by localhost (smtp1.osuosl.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024)
with ESMTP id URo4guAKbYl0
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Thu, 7 Jul 2022 22:02:20 +0000 (UTC)
X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.8.0
DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 smtp1.osuosl.org BD87581388
Received: from mail-yw1-x1130.google.com (mail-yw1-x1130.google.com
[IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::1130])
by smtp1.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id BD87581388
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Thu, 7 Jul 2022 22:02:20 +0000 (UTC)
Received: by mail-yw1-x1130.google.com with SMTP id
00721157ae682-31cb2c649f7so108638737b3.11
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Thu, 07 Jul 2022 15:02:20 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20210112;
h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to;
bh=RIV7vNLj/uZfBbgLUnK+JyKjscE9EEKmVZzpK6vhuFo=;
b=hAGttTpoYpzCMA+CGpxW5QpOpkBawD0OVOPLgNhGe0PBhClgb+uwS55cf3bj3daa5q
kVb6XN8Y4GrNf6JSlYkBmGEjeRjthzwMDAdyXNgFlMnx4TZUhr3uTIpbH4esEe8eV1k6
OFLtvl2H0jxAoSji9Jg3KIhgUo5ih1NjUa2qqDsT4akFlTt/8S39J0tBSBCQk8DeUjbA
JSljrmZwVHceGuItV1MNOQnp3vsWRYGW6iGHhYob9fKb86rTqhXBry3nKvG3N65rtBNw
lqvtnFjuEwdFgF3ill12E0rAJUHeJP5sYpz5QLBgU3ujl6CmkQqIWzMHVDF2/Wv5+EMf
O7jA==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
d=1e100.net; s=20210112;
h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date
:message-id:subject:to;
bh=RIV7vNLj/uZfBbgLUnK+JyKjscE9EEKmVZzpK6vhuFo=;
b=f+TWtbawchm9p09D08Tqio2V4r0tZx/fypG88eVQCDreNGYTuoPPOyicSWtsypheQ8
x2PN2vOeGmJyc901qqubElLJo68/DPIz5Nrf0LGvFOViPy/64uLHpyVh94puhOArKc6Y
AYantsYOgviPONC3XNs9ycSZVcsyv46BuaTPjkN1RO1b34+ZTOsrDOZQEiHmdwNV69OX
G3zIbrYqFQKpeXTQ0eCO5LpbbhADb5/bmfwNiSp1OgDxuw3nz5bNeNsDYjFfBzKThVNF
9pWePMR7JQ1rxkK/Nz/cfr1Jv66AFjOJEDlk8jENyPriPUvqK9Bahcb9hJQjzS5USJ4i
If5g==
X-Gm-Message-State: AJIora9SmexvR+oWsUSP/ZJviYQKWwgrAVe5TG4aFW7dRdVDY16/PbYe
4WndzSXNkrX0icAX8VTAyGjy1MAyjeaUawqldyuxT3R/8EI=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AGRyM1tFBzpk87OA1iu5otC40zvG1r10Ad/VU//wN0PBSKnADP6ORxDOomLmDvwWx42f+xMlfA/um0osBF7Xdsv6o1U=
X-Received: by 2002:a81:90e:0:b0:31c:8789:708b with SMTP id
14-20020a81090e000000b0031c8789708bmr357156ywj.511.1657231339623; Thu, 07 Jul
2022 15:02:19 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <mailman.9.1657195203.20624.bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
<CAHTn92wR+D=2FLAc7vhhm4kNT6NwDfyKdRj32=E9H3UJ4QcE+Q@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAHTn92wR+D=2FLAc7vhhm4kNT6NwDfyKdRj32=E9H3UJ4QcE+Q@mail.gmail.com>
From: Corey Haddad <corey3@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 7 Jul 2022 18:02:08 -0400
Message-ID: <CAK_HAC8gv+O2PEPrn16oOK4_J8Y0qze2jv5Sfkos_ycksB2dxw@mail.gmail.com>
To: John Carvalho <john@synonym.to>,
Bitcoin Protocol Discussion <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0000000000004f172505e33e3dcf"
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Bitcoin covenants are inevitable
X-BeenThere: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: Bitcoin Protocol Discussion <bitcoin-dev.lists.linuxfoundation.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/options/bitcoin-dev>,
<mailto:bitcoin-dev-request@lists.linuxfoundation.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/>
List-Post: <mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
List-Help: <mailto:bitcoin-dev-request@lists.linuxfoundation.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev>,
<mailto:bitcoin-dev-request@lists.linuxfoundation.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 07 Jul 2022 22:02:22 -0000
--0000000000004f172505e33e3dcf
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
>Billy,
>
>Proof of work and the difficulty adjustment function solve literally
everything you are talking about already.
>Bitcoin does not need active economic governanance by devs or meddlers.
>Please stop spamming this list with this nonsensical thread.
>
>Love,
>John
Sorry John, but this is a divisive comment. You are the spammer here. While
it is unclear why you are trying to harm the Bitcoin development process,
you are, and anyone reading this should know that.
Proof of work and the difficulty adjustment have no capability to ensure
that the amount of security is adequate or reasonable.The only proximate
incentive-compatible feedback mechanisms would either make the security too
low or too high, and not approach 'just right'. If the price falls, and the
hashrate goes down, people might conclude that Bitcoin is looking
vulnerable to attack and therefore sell, which would be a negative feedback
loop. Conversely, if a price rise leads to a higher hashrate, people might
think Bitcoin is now even more secure than before and buy, causing a
positive feedback loop. These are not stable equilibria.
PoW and the difficulty adjustments hold block times at 10 minutes, and by
the same token, keep coin issuance roughly on schedule. They have also
turned out to - thus far - have charted a reasonable (albeit predetermined)
course through the various hash-based attacks that lurk out there in the
world. Without any sort or restorative force that guides the security
budget to an optimum, or even towards a reasonable range, we have to
recognize that we are just lucky that Satoshi got it right. When navigating
via dead reckoning, the uncertainty accumulates over time and distance.
Eventually external corrections are needed. We absolutely need to keep
apprised of the current and future threats, assess Bitcoin's resilience in
the face of those threats, and when needed make changes to ensure Bitcoin
remains secure.
Corey
--0000000000004f172505e33e3dcf
Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
<div dir=3D"ltr"><div dir=3D"auto">>Billy,</div><div dir=3D"auto">></=
div><div dir=3D"auto">>Proof of work and the difficulty adjustment funct=
ion solve literally everything you are talking about already.</div><div dir=
=3D"auto">>Bitcoin does not need active economic governanance by devs or=
meddlers.<br></div><div dir=3D"auto">>Please stop spamming this list wi=
th this nonsensical thread.<br></div><div dir=3D"auto">></div><div dir=
=3D"auto">>Love,=C2=A0</div><div dir=3D"auto">>John<br></div><div dir=
=3D"auto"><br></div><div>Sorry John, but this is a divisive=C2=A0comment. Y=
ou are the spammer here. While it is unclear why you are trying to harm the=
Bitcoin development process, you are, and anyone reading this should know =
that.</div><div><br></div><div>Proof of work and the difficulty adjustment =
have no capability to ensure that the amount of security is adequate=C2=A0o=
r reasonable.The only proximate incentive-compatible feedback mechanisms wo=
uld either make the security=C2=A0too low or too high, and not approach =
9;just=C2=A0right'. If the price falls, and the hashrate goes down, peo=
ple might conclude that Bitcoin is looking vulnerable to attack and therefo=
re sell, which would be a negative feedback loop. Conversely, if a price ri=
se leads to a higher hashrate, people might think Bitcoin is now even more =
secure than before and buy, causing a positive feedback loop. These are not=
stable equilibria.</div><div><br></div><div>PoW and the difficulty adjustm=
ents hold block times at 10 minutes, and by the same token, keep coin issua=
nce roughly on schedule. They have also turned out to - thus far - have cha=
rted a reasonable (albeit predetermined) course through the various hash-ba=
sed attacks that lurk out there in the world. Without any sort or restorati=
ve=C2=A0force that guides the security budget to an optimum, or even toward=
s a reasonable range, we have to recognize that we are just lucky that Sato=
shi got it right. When navigating via dead reckoning, the uncertainty=C2=A0=
accumulates=C2=A0over time and distance. Eventually external corrections ar=
e needed. We absolutely=C2=A0need to keep apprised of the current and futur=
e threats, assess Bitcoin's resilience in the face of those threats, an=
d when needed make changes to ensure Bitcoin remains secure.</div><div><br>=
</div><div>Corey</div><div><br></div><div><br></div></div>
--0000000000004f172505e33e3dcf--
|
