From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org [172.17.192.35]) by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 88082BB3 for ; Tue, 7 Mar 2017 18:13:39 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from mail-pg0-f48.google.com (mail-pg0-f48.google.com [74.125.83.48]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id F2253178 for ; Tue, 7 Mar 2017 18:13:38 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-pg0-f48.google.com with SMTP id 77so3205697pgc.1 for ; Tue, 07 Mar 2017 10:13:38 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=voskuil-org.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; bh=nQYsOt3i4gTYPIILIbLwgmTAJRKrp2XI1MafDkD9T+0=; b=pFpEU9cRWtMOh4KcVpQR0WhU4RvseTePzaeDNVzou/w5GpkVTsdw/xjYdCFZUxxySt 0RttY+sA8cBygXMFwhQkNdbvAR9Bywy+2I+PXI+uEl3+JBVimFLx6aoWSPIHocNxu7dB eeZ47EmiKMWvybXiKaofgmb42Q1Hiu4VdrrcqU1TcwNVETEwBDsePktUSWvUZ8fN/jH5 tA4vcNz7Ddh5C26nR2VaX0yhl7crm6RLx3W2EkcXvVPwzWQa8G6KK6fJjs2ybjfSR3+K 9EGIwheV2x8RaL/PUdH+NMW2yBQLorcCzGcI3F77YLzJ/QbXaRp/iBSb/uWDouHR/B3h DyiQ== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; bh=nQYsOt3i4gTYPIILIbLwgmTAJRKrp2XI1MafDkD9T+0=; b=TVf3wcs5l0/K9WODTa3mXktSrzWW2sDcEzFxETxBx+U1JR0S0NsIQdmNXRqp5AOm9V 9qcRztYsJJ4TatyFp7/V5JJmt77XzVH8x//4oDqVkw9EICo2b/xoYfcr9qQFYa2SXGVN ZO8U164ilqcXZNLweKX1/NnNfLOkxKfq+XCH3rXxNnPyTmSJTsd3BJLZ1W1wtafyzZAF csdbCtPK0xKi8TyGG9HDsqDp5Vkyj+fFr7lf0VW0CHNo4ZTI376fUwWKhSND3F+1fFFg 1O7cB4SeRzv2BBvyb9BekzieOf2LSFREcHCXavE+WgpPFfVQ9tHcFnPv/oe+0emrbiQV OSXQ== X-Gm-Message-State: AMke39lK7aTYidYh01NXwmiEFoqoT8dBWKUUB+sSZQrwnZZCYw/OBnhheEJehetPzOXX5g== X-Received: by 10.84.149.102 with SMTP id b35mr2297603plh.3.1488910418505; Tue, 07 Mar 2017 10:13:38 -0800 (PST) Received: from [10.214.35.120] (mobile-166-176-184-131.mycingular.net. [166.176.184.131]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id 80sm1154864pgd.39.2017.03.07.10.13.37 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Tue, 07 Mar 2017 10:13:37 -0800 (PST) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Mime-Version: 1.0 (1.0) From: Eric Voskuil X-Mailer: iPhone Mail (14D27) In-Reply-To: <9086552.5NYgjOP6f4@strawberry> Date: Tue, 7 Mar 2017 10:13:36 -0800 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: <08254322-D7BC-4BF8-ACB2-189588D93325@voskuil.org> References: <0ba5bf9c-5578-98ce-07ae-036d0d71046b@riseup.net> <964E4801-234F-4E30-A040-2C63274D27F2@posteo.net> <9086552.5NYgjOP6f4@strawberry> To: Tom Zander , Bitcoin Protocol Discussion X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.4 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,MIME_QP_LONG_LINE,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE,RCVD_IN_SORBS_SPAM autolearn=no version=3.3.1 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on smtp1.linux-foundation.org X-Mailman-Approved-At: Tue, 07 Mar 2017 18:22:27 +0000 Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Moving towards user activated soft fork activation X-BeenThere: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Bitcoin Protocol Discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 07 Mar 2017 18:13:39 -0000 > Bitcoin would lose the security and in the short term even the ability to=20= mine blocks every 10 minutes. Presumably a POW hard fork would be accompanied by a difficulty reset, so th= at the deployment didn't have *both* of these problems from the outset. The= re's really little difference between 10 minutes at little/no security and z= ero conf. See testnet. But people might feel better about still seeing block= s. But in any case it's not clear to me why you assume a loss of security in th= e "short term" is something that can be overcome. The short term can presuma= bly prevent the long term from ever becoming. e > On Mar 7, 2017, at 1:17 AM, Tom Zander via bitcoin-dev wrote: >=20 >> On Tuesday, 7 March 2017 00:23:47 CET Gareth Williams via bitcoin-dev wro= te: >> What you're describing is a hashpower activated soft fork to censor >> transactions, in response to a user activated soft fork that the majority= >> of hashpower disagrees with. >=20 > It is incorrect to say that censoring of transactions is what Edmund=20 > suggested. It's purely about the form they take, you can re-send the=20 > transaction in a different form with the same content and they go through.= =20 > Hence, not transaction censoring. >=20 > I do believe the point that Edmund brought up is a very good one, the idea= =20 > that a set of users can force the miners to do something is rather silly a= nd=20 > the setup that a minority miner fraction can force the majority to do=20 > something is equally silly. This is because the majority mining hashpower=20= > can fight back against this attack upon them. >=20 > Don=E2=80=99t be mistaken; a hash-minority attacking the hash-majority is i= n actual=20 > fact an attack upon Bitcoin as a whole. > If this were possible then next year we=E2=80=99d see governments try to p= ush=20 > through changes in the same UASF way. I=E2=80=99m very happy that UASFs ca= n=E2=80=99t work=20 > because that would be the end of Bitcoin's freedom and decentralized natur= e. >=20 >> It is always possible for a majority of hashpower to censor transactions >> they disagree with. Users may view that as an attack, and can always >> respond with a POW hard fork. >=20 > I definitely welcome that approach. >=20 > The result would be that you have two chains, but also you ensure that the= =20 > chain that the miners didn=E2=80=99t like will no longer be something they= can mine.=20 > Not even the minority set of miners that like the softfork can mine on it.= =20 > This is a win-win and then the market will decide which one will "win". >=20 >> Bitcoin only works if the majority of hashpower is not hostile to the >> users. >=20 > This goes both ways, miners both generate value (in the form of security)=20= > and they take value (in the form of inflation). > If the majority of the users are hostile and reject blocks that the miners= =20 > create, or change the POW, then what the miners bring to the table is also= =20 > removed. > Bitcoin would lose the security and in the short term even the ability to=20= > mine blocks every 10 minutes. >=20 > So, lets correct your statement a little; > =C2=ABBitcoin only works when the majority of the hashpower and the (econo= mic) > majority of the users are balanced in power and have their goals aligned.= =C2=BB >=20 > --=20 > Tom Zander > Blog: https://zander.github.io > Vlog: https://vimeo.com/channels/tomscryptochannel > _______________________________________________ > bitcoin-dev mailing list > bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org > https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev