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 C07411C42 for ; Tue, 29 Sep 2015 18:02:01 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from mail-la0-f50.google.com (mail-la0-f50.google.com [209.85.215.50]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 08D831F9 for ; Tue, 29 Sep 2015 18:02:01 +0000 (UTC) Received: by labzv5 with SMTP id zv5so18465809lab.1 for ; Tue, 29 Sep 2015 11:01:59 -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=9HT24dd7agIQp9vQGrOBBlz0izPbhXcugrpc+Lh5cGs=; b=zxmufK0gjlTWP1zlwFc72PqfrMTYpkY+XWsGaZjytELHK9rVm7ZADg9dqSxwltvfOm f/Hp/eZZYluKZP7nqWkFmlfYq4w+uHHBhVDIc189J/7mSILLAev9nddLTMPSv96tqxbi /7+9caZ82JuISFGQXB72XA3q5xZrynsi3H9kWl028S4IFVgyjKU7mKGmEEbmih3PjwBE QukamA0KrigKjIbFjiMAIuTcPxZ4pWxzIT6eIrhMxG71FzzpcZ95rJtv6itspTmR30AF wPkhxmin7vhX2s2jzKxaP/szfHvUhyULJsEeFUZn8eOIoytWLt8jvhkY5R+8SCbOMXnb GnIg== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.112.25.4 with SMTP id y4mr7763029lbf.113.1443549719106; Tue, 29 Sep 2015 11:01:59 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.25.200.214 with HTTP; Tue, 29 Sep 2015 11:01:59 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: Date: Tue, 29 Sep 2015 14:01:59 -0400 Message-ID: From: Gavin Andresen To: Allen Piscitello Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a11c3d06a391e020520e69c2f X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.7 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,FREEMAIL_FROM,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 Cc: Bitcoin Dev Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Is it possible for there to be two chains after a 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: Tue, 29 Sep 2015 18:02:01 -0000 --001a11c3d06a391e020520e69c2f Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 We really shouldn't have to go over "Bitcoin 101" on this mailing list, and this discussion should move to the not-yet-created more general discussion list. I started this thread as a sanity check on myself, because I keep seeing smart people saying that two chains could persist for more than a few days after a hard fork, and I still don't see how that would possibly work. So: "fraud" would be 51% miners sending you bitcoin in exchange for something of value, you wait for confirmations and send them that something of value, and then the 51% reverses the transaction. Running a full node doesn't help. On Tue, Sep 29, 2015 at 1:55 PM, Allen Piscitello < allen.piscitello@gmail.com> wrote: > >A dishonest miner majority can commit fraud against you, they can mine > only empty blocks, they can do various other things that render your money > worthless. > > Mining empty blocks is not fraud. > > If you want to use terms like "honest miners" and "fraud", please define > them so we can at least be on the same page. > > I am defining an honest miner as one that follows the rules of the > protocol. Obviously your definition is different. > > On Tue, Sep 29, 2015 at 12:51 PM, Mike Hearn wrote: > >> >because Bitcoin's basic security assumption is that a supermajority of >>> miners are 'honest.' >>> >>> Only if you rely on SPV. >>> >> >> No, you rely on miners honesty even if you run a full node. This is in >> the white paper. A dishonest miner majority can commit fraud against you, >> they can mine only empty blocks, they can do various other things that >> render your money worthless. >> > > -- -- Gavin Andresen --001a11c3d06a391e020520e69c2f Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
We really shouldn't have to go over "Bitcoin 101&= quot; on this mailing list, and this discussion should move to the not-yet-= created more general discussion list.=C2=A0 I started this thread as a sani= ty check on myself, because I keep seeing smart people saying that two chai= ns could persist for more than a few days after a hard fork, and I still do= n't see how that would possibly work.

So: "frau= d" would be 51% miners sending you bitcoin in exchange for something o= f value, you wait for confirmations and send them that something of value, = and then the 51% reverses the transaction.

Running= a full node doesn't help.

On Tue, Sep 29, 2015 at 1:55 PM, Allen Piscitello <= span dir=3D"ltr"><allen.piscitello@gmail.com> wrote:
>A dishonest miner majority can commit fraud against you, th= ey can mine only empty blocks, they can do various other things that render= your money worthless.

Mining empty blocks i= s not fraud.

<= /div>
If you want to use terms like &q= uot;honest miners" and "fraud", please define them so we can= at least be on the same page.

I am defining = an honest miner as one that follows the rules of the protocol.=C2=A0 Obviou= sly your definition is different.
<= div class=3D"h5">

= On Tue, Sep 29, 2015 at 12:51 PM, Mike Hearn <hearn@vinumeris.com&g= t; wrote:
><= /span>because Bitcoin's basic security= assumption is that a supermajority of miners are 'honest.'<= /div>

Only if you rely on SPV.

No, you rely on miners honesty even i= f you run a full node. This is in the white paper. A dishonest miner majori= ty can commit fraud against you, they can mine only empty blocks, they can = do various other things that render your money worthless.
=




--
=
--
Gavin Andresen
--001a11c3d06a391e020520e69c2f--