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 B61C6899 for ; Sat, 8 Apr 2017 16:27:50 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from mail-ua0-f182.google.com (mail-ua0-f182.google.com [209.85.217.182]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 31594FF for ; Sat, 8 Apr 2017 16:27:50 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-ua0-f182.google.com with SMTP id u103so9296900uau.1 for ; Sat, 08 Apr 2017 09:27:50 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=jtimon-cc.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=s4MTo4N42oiWJAuInYwAE7Irj3Hcx2j9iqscIom20Ys=; b=MQEyBEY5FkMFloKRIF5cj9GeKao7O2jWwSDWo/t3Cg+au/Dimp1mjzL2ZS5rSQqk+b GNqlUQe+PPWAOAnm+dn/OwxpjltR6haMN5nfFzUDr6pZ7d1UvHukEC72tfNWtL/FTkxv 8HqBLVv7bBmDrNDsPnPTGm44l42PeLL5L9TZwGFGMAiAEyIp8uD034Fng4d586SOnkJD 1T3nfGjscjUkOZ0IzUjR/GVjyUYtWOokbj2YPCaJY4UwJYhip8rRZDZzLrqLXao6p9kX 1+fGMxWqO32eCVFcL49YhFfvjWNuy56cSFznSal29VdkL2LRcpJqpRNSQQlDjuFzbenF iQpw== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=s4MTo4N42oiWJAuInYwAE7Irj3Hcx2j9iqscIom20Ys=; b=UIy14/9aga8DMEKt8h05Y+PxaHaUemmaI0HgFYXhmHSveFL4gcwsfL8JsJeGt/qP7X WELWHacLvHxiP0072kPxOBdhobpRvkY7CBw7r62GE+9I1cjLzEjOblkCKXGOOeokm+57 QqUwUKhcw/x/myIvmzIzyWyBx1k82Y3o+vEltnZhHbgxSQyQ7CqxdPJjxm/HREKjQ5BR IiLbDyLpwS5SQw1InsA9Kvuy1/waLKJe+wfJXOxV7RMn2ckYC3rqIusw2Z9KXz++xemz bKFw8Hl/2BGe4mmYv7mZXjxtJYdSzEGQKrYz8K4QCAsAskb6o7a39lRpByQ+lOv2F/+X Ubcg== X-Gm-Message-State: AFeK/H0z5ikBVCeF69JgeU8/+DfdMGm11ub7wN8hw+8byMH2G/Lz+y9FCfi/KYc21glBwwZlgZcVYXf4tVwIXw== X-Received: by 10.159.48.81 with SMTP id i17mr23130960uab.65.1491668869241; Sat, 08 Apr 2017 09:27:49 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.31.151.136 with HTTP; Sat, 8 Apr 2017 09:27:48 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.31.151.136 with HTTP; Sat, 8 Apr 2017 09:27:48 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: From: =?UTF-8?B?Sm9yZ2UgVGltw7Nu?= Date: Sat, 8 Apr 2017 18:27:48 +0200 Message-ID: To: Jimmy Song , Bitcoin Dev Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=94eb2c1b113212f349054caa3948 X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID, HTML_MESSAGE, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE autolearn=ham version=3.3.1 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on smtp1.linux-foundation.org Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] A Small Modification to Segwit 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: Sat, 08 Apr 2017 16:27:50 -0000 --94eb2c1b113212f349054caa3948 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 On 8 Apr 2017 5:06 am, "Jimmy Song via bitcoin-dev" < bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote: Praxeology Guy, Why would the actual end users of Bitcoin (the long term and short term > owners of bitcoins) who run fully verifying nodes want to change Bitcoin > policy in order to make their money more vulnerable to 51% attack? > Certainly, if only one company made use of the extra nonce space, they would have an advantage. But think of it this way, if some newer ASIC optimization comes up, would you rather have a non-ASICBoosted hash rate to defend with or an ASICBoosted hash rate? Certainly, the latter, being higher will secure the Bitcoin network better against newer optimizations. Why? --94eb2c1b113212f349054caa3948 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable


On 8 Apr 2017 5:06 am, "Jimmy Song via bitcoin-dev&q= uot; <bitcoin-d= ev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
Praxeology Gu= y,

Why would the actual = end users of Bitcoin (the long term and short term owners of bitcoins) who = run fully verifying nodes want to change Bitcoin policy in order to make th= eir money more vulnerable to 51% attack?

<= /div>
Certainly, if only one company made use of the extra nonce space,= they would have an advantage. But think of it this way, if some newer ASIC= optimization comes up, would you rather have a non-ASICBoosted hash rate t= o defend with or an ASICBoosted hash rate? Certainly, the latter, being hig= her will secure the Bitcoin network better against newer optimizations.

Why?
--94eb2c1b113212f349054caa3948--