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 DDF6A16F4 for ; Sat, 19 Sep 2015 06:56:49 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from mail-pa0-f45.google.com (mail-pa0-f45.google.com [209.85.220.45]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8555A9C for ; Sat, 19 Sep 2015 06:56:49 +0000 (UTC) Received: by pacfv12 with SMTP id fv12so70863662pac.2 for ; Fri, 18 Sep 2015 23:56:49 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to :cc:subject:references:in-reply-to:content-type; bh=8E+t32QqiZqE769O7sf7EDc0ejeoBguPZtXEcMPm4uQ=; b=ZVAQU1qvPaXH58tQSmy5Dyzb21GEnnk1O7DAONM/qZXkD3tZqfv7DdimP4y3yLm2YW u7WfojT2U5s8ofwxxdwve3198/sLPmvafJlwLB7d+Ppa7zBlcBWRJXDP3n7pHr3zK1P5 +xtNg6VaXtEaIHeF84uWCe458ytED8iJ9Suv9Z9BxPtUPQWY0Lu4fQ/CWaGPDCWB/6h1 q1pGeOidpmVQW2PAoEpC8F+7hPZN8RG1Eqw3Z8sP2MaS7pKOeSJTlYPZsycqG7Hpb5Ko 9nNe6y9fOTuxfQJEiUMQLKtMqVTG40y9m+PcBHo1QWNtNARE4y/GWE/uqApmX8JZtM52 9t7A== X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQkLBjrsCr2owbKqruGx77p7OmUUzajOyyzktOP3c3p/LLUSHxJENy+y1H2IonQIeVlSwaT4 X-Received: by 10.68.102.225 with SMTP id fr1mr11705225pbb.65.1442645809227; Fri, 18 Sep 2015 23:56:49 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [10.0.1.13] (c-73-225-134-208.hsd1.wa.comcast.net. [73.225.134.208]) by smtp.googlemail.com with ESMTPSA id be3sm12549305pbc.88.2015.09.18.23.56.48 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Fri, 18 Sep 2015 23:56:48 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <55FD0737.1080008@voskuil.org> Date: Fri, 18 Sep 2015 23:56:55 -0700 From: Eric Voskuil User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.2.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: NxtChg , Peter Todd , Matt Corallo References: <55F9E47D.50507@mattcorallo.com> <55FC6EBF.9090504@mattcorallo.com> <20150919014710.GD22598@muck> <20150919060639.A775A404B9@smtp.hushmail.com> In-Reply-To: <20150919060639.A775A404B9@smtp.hushmail.com> Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="uD4CSHb1exaQ08vBEKbUbWfop6d6GHNrM" X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW autolearn=ham version=3.3.1 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on smtp1.linux-foundation.org Cc: Bitcoin development mailing list , Libbitcoin Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Scaling Bitcoin conference micro-report X-BeenThere: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Bitcoin Development Discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 19 Sep 2015 06:56:50 -0000 This is an OpenPGP/MIME signed message (RFC 4880 and 3156) --uD4CSHb1exaQ08vBEKbUbWfop6d6GHNrM Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On 09/18/2015 11:06 PM, NxtChg via bitcoin-dev wrote: >> While to many of us that sounds crazy, if you're threat model assumes >> Bitcoin is a legal/regulated service provided by a highly trusted >> mining community it's a reasonable design. > > There is a large, grey area all the way to "legal/regulated service > provided by a highly trusted mining community". Painting the worst > looking picture is either a defect in thinking or intentional FUD. The state is the threat in the Bitcoin threat model. You comments below acknowledge it. The assumption of hostile state actors is the only rational starting point. That which is regulated (and regulatable) in Bitcoin is the attack surface. While of course there are various degrees of weakness, the reference to "legal/regulated service provided by a highly trusted mining" as the threat is by no means irrational or misdirecting. This threat represents the difference between Bitcoin and Fedcoin. I found Mike's threat model downright disturbing. All benefits of Bitcoin arise from its resistance to this threat. Anyone investor in this space should be paying attention... the apparent benefits of Bitcoin will vaporize with regulation. >> Mike Hearn recently posted his threat model, which specifically >> argues we should assume governments are not a threat. > > There are two ways to fight governments: > > 1. either you become too big to close, so political repercussions > become unacceptable This is extremely naive. At a minimum, getting popular/successful (and regulated) is the formula for regulatory capture. > 2. or you become too tiny to hunt, in which case you are much better > off with a specialized alt-coin, designed specifically for that > purpose. I assume you are referring some marginal and largely irrelevant effort. False dichotomy. [cross-posted to libbitcoin] --uD4CSHb1exaQ08vBEKbUbWfop6d6GHNrM 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 iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJV/Qc3AAoJEDzYwH8LXOFODmMH/isas58lMn7aMKNvIHB9c/uy ewhO9BpzaTQRARWixhUdCoa32ZYkYu4u65U3D3YnavLeg+OLu5Hq445OISA/lkEB fCn0KpOm36AA2F4bQR2Q+gprvGoq7aD10gVuLwLvNGw1dW6t1OWaz53NkJOChphb NNlqCBk6ktiCM9brNZJxihDE043dWJ0joKmSuSEV6jIzBG2LWzPp/1IrFISP56GA 4bzQGaqy+4OEO//UlS8NHsZ7DZMeRdfBW4KNFPOoAKdywShRwh6jPV0EaSGp0xjG QpjN9pRMJjqhkbE1PkfJBrjrPu6KbF6wgMDpK7NyvTBQqf827O5i9flUdyVv1Oo= =w/pD -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --uD4CSHb1exaQ08vBEKbUbWfop6d6GHNrM--