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 2A8C5C4A for ; Thu, 10 Mar 2016 15:59:34 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from mail-vk0-f47.google.com (mail-vk0-f47.google.com [209.85.213.47]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 89AA3128 for ; Thu, 10 Mar 2016 15:59:33 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-vk0-f47.google.com with SMTP id c3so100547289vkb.3 for ; Thu, 10 Mar 2016 07:59:33 -0800 (PST) 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:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc; bh=8t/K9cDBrqKX2i8YAdUThkbHb0ANvWT3i4XlutqMO1o=; b=c382v3+vPWQu12/fm5NVEK683RAWEvdwejw7EpGUUirpB8qwLwRdc7t9hi2pFgGyI9 w9Kubu8b2+6pcF8qVweOQpOnzUaCz+FURR7szM21RVlqC0yCLwWaWspg3uKSbrhoRPlG xsyCAvZf2MdxoxmjA4ShNGLGg5k6kVBrqKUmGqlvkgKI5ajra6Mob0IIslmpTMJwenso uicmsZmQq+CslND+r2cfFaUcOmQaICoV4BqYUJ4XK89gQjJOCyYaW/0INWu/E/QKP6ry qNylr2YnoZQHFottC3sblHe1o83V1DnvRLFS3+9c3ff/7BXMD/tkFp8MYU6fiqOkTV8p iNKw== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date :message-id:subject:from:to:cc; bh=8t/K9cDBrqKX2i8YAdUThkbHb0ANvWT3i4XlutqMO1o=; b=NWcJ+QOZ29IKz59j1/RSSAAboD42HkKgTHFgpxX1XC4BKON4x8q7iMnBMpvwapT16o E+cpG1NV60Je30eo6WhSkXHlg73ob7N4CfzvtB7FxPxUmE/Rp8oLLBv1KQG8YmIFcbvA NtdYAIjnfrCVks0qk1U98ZG4HAQtwv44dvJ0y/Nep+r/eTg90oDMJSJGNpKXl5s1bcKG h27PVzrlu6n6LmkRhenb1Z6FcBxABYFCe7qP2cs4wQh8OZVzeB2qg08+p1+1woTyntZP G8ylSp/UIQk3SN8dXJ68FPmDzBxiA5FQf02x1EQ2QY8sD9yW/BYaIqd9XxjFo4e3x5i7 AlZQ== X-Gm-Message-State: AD7BkJJgG9BRKcLa4YiIbp612u1gBqzd3totuiS+SkLWntvb31O9Kk+7nVJdJfzkSLP0o7dEFpnow7Q0zzBBdg== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.31.180.213 with SMTP id d204mr3931713vkf.80.1457625572824; Thu, 10 Mar 2016 07:59:32 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.31.141.73 with HTTP; Thu, 10 Mar 2016 07:59:32 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.31.141.73 with HTTP; Thu, 10 Mar 2016 07:59:32 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <56E17E67.9040508@musalbas.com> References: <201603081904.28687.luke@dashjr.org> <56E0BFDC.5070604@musalbas.com> <201603100053.43822.luke@dashjr.org> <56E17E67.9040508@musalbas.com> Date: Thu, 10 Mar 2016 16:59:32 +0100 Message-ID: From: =?UTF-8?B?Sm9yZ2UgVGltw7Nu?= To: Mustafa Al-Bassam Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a1144030e7bf149052db3e695 X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,HTML_MESSAGE,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 X-Mailman-Approved-At: Thu, 10 Mar 2016 16:02:47 +0000 Cc: Bitcoin Dev Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] BIP 2 promotion to Final 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: Thu, 10 Mar 2016 15:59:34 -0000 --001a1144030e7bf149052db3e695 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 On Mar 10, 2016 16:51, "Mustafa Al-Bassam via bitcoin-dev" < bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote: > I think in general this sounds like a good definition for a hard-fork > becoming active. But I can envision a situation where someone will try > to be annoying about it and point to one instance of one buyer and one > seller using the blockchain to buy and sell from each other, or set one up. And all the attacker will achieve is preventing a field on a text file on github from moving from "active" to "final". Seems pretty stupid. Why would an attacker care so much about this? Is there any way the attacker can make gains or harm bitcoin with this attack? --001a1144030e7bf149052db3e695 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8


On Mar 10, 2016 16:51, "Mustafa Al-Bassam via bitcoin-dev" <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:

> I think in general this sounds like a good definition for a hard-fork
> becoming active. But I can envision a situation where someone will try
> to be annoying about it and point to one instance of one buyer and one
> seller using the blockchain to buy and sell from each other, or set one up.

And all the attacker will achieve is preventing a field on a text file on github from moving from "active" to "final".
Seems pretty stupid. Why would an attacker care so much about this? Is there any way the attacker can make gains or harm bitcoin with this attack?

--001a1144030e7bf149052db3e695--