From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from sog-mx-2.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.192] helo=mx.sourceforge.net) by sfs-ml-1.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76) (envelope-from ) id 1WeOa9-0007kd-RA for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Sun, 27 Apr 2014 12:53:21 +0000 Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-2.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of gmail.com designates 209.85.213.180 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.85.213.180; envelope-from=gacrux@gmail.com; helo=mail-ig0-f180.google.com; Received: from mail-ig0-f180.google.com ([209.85.213.180]) by sog-mx-2.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128) (Exim 4.76) id 1WeOa7-0006Ho-Du for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Sun, 27 Apr 2014 12:53:21 +0000 Received: by mail-ig0-f180.google.com with SMTP id c1so3824350igq.7 for ; Sun, 27 Apr 2014 05:53:14 -0700 (PDT) X-Received: by 10.50.30.167 with SMTP id t7mr17458125igh.17.1398603194100; Sun, 27 Apr 2014 05:53:14 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [192.168.1.150] (60-240-212-53.tpgi.com.au. [60.240.212.53]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id om5sm15718754igb.16.2014.04.27.05.53.12 for (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Sun, 27 Apr 2014 05:53:13 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <535CFDB4.1000200@gmail.com> Date: Sun, 27 Apr 2014 22:53:08 +1000 From: Gareth Williams User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.4.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bitcoin Dev References: <5359E509.4080907@gmail.com> <535A60FE.10209@gmail.com> <535BA357.6050607@gmail.com> In-Reply-To: X-Enigmail-Version: 1.6 OpenPGP: id=378E4544 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="KD3UhFjm4WussuCeoJics2K2faIg3iCbR" X-Spam-Score: -1.6 (-) 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 (gacrux[at]gmail.com) -0.0 SPF_PASS SPF: sender matches SPF record -0.1 DKIM_VALID_AU Message has a valid DKIM or DK signature from author's domain 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: 1WeOa7-0006Ho-Du 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: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 27 Apr 2014 12:53:22 -0000 This is an OpenPGP/MIME signed message (RFC 4880 and 3156) --KD3UhFjm4WussuCeoJics2K2faIg3iCbR Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On 27/04/14 11:42, Christophe Biocca wrote:> This seems like splitting hairs, no? A block isn't a guarantee (it can > get orphaned). And as a user of bitcoin (as opposed to a miner), this > change cannot affect any payment you ever receive. Disagree. Maybe we just have a fundamental disagreement about what Bitcoin is? :) Bitcoin is this perfect /trustless/ mathematical machine, built - most unfortunately - upon a foundation of mushy humans. We depend specifically upon these three assumptions: 1. >50% of hashpower will not cooperate to rewrite history 2. the economic majority will not cooperate to reinterpret history 3. enough people believe in the illusion of artificial scarcity to give it real value Given that the above hold, from there up the system operates completely trustlessly, with predictable security parameters. (Of course a block isn't a guarantee of anything, but I know the probability that you can cause a re-org from depth N with X% hashpower, which allows me to reason about security.) Now, some people on this thread might point to the above 3 points and say "that isn't really a trustless system, it's a democratic system." And then advocate that we can do without assumption 2, replacing it with:= 2. the economic majority will not cooperate to reinterpret history against any good guys, only against bad guys; "please trust their good judgement." That moves us away from a pure trustless system built upon a small democratic foundation (as something of a necessary evil in an imperfect world where humans run our computers and use our system) and toward a "democratic system". You don't have to agree, but I hope you can understand the point I'm making :-) It's a fundamental shift in the nature of the system, and to some people a violation of the social contract. Definitely not splitting hairs. I feel I've now consumed rather more bytes of everyone's inboxes than I ought to have with this topic. I appreciate you and Mike taking the time to reply to a newbie/lurker. -Gareth --KD3UhFjm4WussuCeoJics2K2faIg3iCbR Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" Content-Description: OpenPGP digital signature Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="signature.asc" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/ iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJTXP20AAoJEEY5w2E3jkVE3fIH/2X1E/PFA6sG2JCSfPfqNqRG 3Aeaasc14palShqc5R08yO7dOUdGwvhYPtbmFTV7oNxTMXHi9XbkQQwsvBcXxd+t 8pnC+7ock/Ev7NSb8i4FYTYkAJAubxUCeIuJ7d0/uYssuEDTnu1o+Pmsk1JI8CVJ ory3KxWnyqUNv+qb9hdx0iNYZ6A3PVtOQ4rUl6oLULc+WpqNkJdEd1hDduvsbHMx c9wLTvHjEW9oIN+m50nkN6SA/WdiKZKsZL/jOIkzxZVSVTRicP/IKa1eWIgMkVOd R51NPLyO6D2+VDTQTUuXHxPwbMyM1hIhQ3QAAT8kjRgDPK4yFCDSFlpVQx7/g0g= =buNE -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --KD3UhFjm4WussuCeoJics2K2faIg3iCbR--