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 8B17FB0B for ; Tue, 7 Mar 2017 09:14:04 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from mx-out01.mykolab.com (mx.kolabnow.com [95.128.36.1]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6F6A8CD for ; Tue, 7 Mar 2017 09:14:03 +0000 (UTC) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at kolabnow.com X-Spam-Score: -2.9 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW autolearn=ham version=3.3.1 Received: from mx03.mykolab.com (mx03.mykolab.com [10.20.7.101]) by mx-out01.mykolab.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 402476EA0F; Tue, 7 Mar 2017 10:14:00 +0100 (CET) From: Tom Zander To: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org, Gareth Williams Date: Tue, 07 Mar 2017 10:17:18 +0100 Message-ID: <9086552.5NYgjOP6f4@strawberry> In-Reply-To: <964E4801-234F-4E30-A040-2C63274D27F2@posteo.net> References: <0ba5bf9c-5578-98ce-07ae-036d0d71046b@riseup.net> <964E4801-234F-4E30-A040-2C63274D27F2@posteo.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on smtp1.linux-foundation.org X-Mailman-Approved-At: Tue, 07 Mar 2017 17:43:57 +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 09:14:04 -0000 On Tuesday, 7 March 2017 00:23:47 CET Gareth Williams via bitcoin-dev wrote: > 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. 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. 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 an= d=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. 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 pu= sh=20 through changes in the same UASF way. I=E2=80=99m very happy that UASFs can= =E2=80=99t work=20 because that would be the end of Bitcoin's freedom and decentralized nature. > 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. I definitely welcome that approach. 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. 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. So, lets correct your statement a little; =C2=ABBitcoin only works when the majority of the hashpower and the (econom= ic) majority of the users are balanced in power and have their goals aligned.= =C2=BB =2D-=20 Tom Zander Blog: https://zander.github.io Vlog: https://vimeo.com/channels/tomscryptochannel