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 D0F54409 for ; Sat, 1 Aug 2015 00:17:26 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from mail-ig0-f176.google.com (mail-ig0-f176.google.com [209.85.213.176]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3E0A47C for ; Sat, 1 Aug 2015 00:17:26 +0000 (UTC) Received: by igr7 with SMTP id 7so26130446igr.0 for ; Fri, 31 Jul 2015 17:17:25 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=4tts1ocU1u2iukw3z19+gpnNeQkFTOor945p1xhdNRc=; b=IrrdLbtewqhm3BMcRGmBp+xeOfxMAzlpAUwa22mzu1apzJmEKOtaGpDlUtUtaQDQ1a 902gbGRCYga+rcskCLorhCW1TrFTrg4Eshqeq3fjsPH3AUspx+gCOz0CyYunNoS871Rl 6LZHx9uHz3l9DrRtxBxJYmTXj5uM1t8fYzYsc1EoWvtuB0GUrYi1amuklCDEdv5xWjWj Nvb4O7DrLWtpzAE7HktPuqAsjOCR5f+xIRREonyef0gdKSyPCSCFXpINKDNp2psqm0nw jzmVx5QxttxsCUOmQO1GcKb75Wawdgq8dXfFN4wH/zXpdBTRXWZTSx25jKGRMzkBFiww NMRA== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.50.143.37 with SMTP id sb5mr10370234igb.62.1438388245772; Fri, 31 Jul 2015 17:17:25 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.107.48.212 with HTTP; Fri, 31 Jul 2015 17:17:25 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: Date: Sat, 1 Aug 2015 00:17:25 +0000 Message-ID: From: Gregory Maxwell To: Hector Chu Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.7 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID, DKIM_VALID_AU, FREEMAIL_FROM, 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 Dev Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Block size hard fork 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, 01 Aug 2015 00:17:26 -0000 On Sat, Aug 1, 2015 at 12:05 AM, Hector Chu via bitcoin-dev wrote: > There is nothing tying > transactions to the blocks they appear in. Transactions can be recieved or accepted in different orders by different nodes. The purpose of the blockchain is to resolve any potential conflicting transactions by providing a globally agreed total ordering. As soon as one of the forks accepts a different transaction in a conflicting set then there will be transactions which exist on one chain which cannot exist on the other. One can quite easily transact in a way to intentionally produce such a split to seperate the existance of your coins onto the seperate forks; just as anyone would need to do to perform a reorg-and-respend attack on a single blockchain. Additionally, new coins will be issued, along with fees, on both chains. These new outputs become spendable after 100 blocks, and any transaction spending them can exist exclusively on one chain. Also any transaction whos casual history extends from one of the above cases can exist only on one chain. This also means that someone who has single-chain coins (via a conflict or from coinbase outputs) can pay small amount to many users to get their wallets to consume them and make more of the transactions single chain only-- if they wanted the process to happen faster. > Miners will migrate to the bigger chain in search of higher profits due to higher volume of fees The migration remark is a considerable oversimplification. Imagine if I released a version of the software programmed to reassign ownership of a million of the earliest created unmoved coins to me at block 400k, and then after that I made transaction to pay 5 coin/block in fees. Would miners move to this chain? It pays more in fees!