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 663B674 for ; Sun, 16 Aug 2015 23:22:56 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from mail-oi0-f49.google.com (mail-oi0-f49.google.com [209.85.218.49]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 91A7C159 for ; Sun, 16 Aug 2015 23:22:55 +0000 (UTC) Received: by oiew67 with SMTP id w67so52144766oie.2 for ; Sun, 16 Aug 2015 16:22:55 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :content-type; bh=dGoPGqOMBYtwv4We0vlRP2iBUd/AuCEQn+x0WHpAOAY=; b=eg9slKKaNVXrlJ1pfXMDY7UqUhdqxLJxM0mnQ2GsXJ6h58o1uzdq9cTacP3rgnDfxM 9R1I/CNzvVOt3KzB+ZrjofnEA0tyqS4I0CAdsfOlHmGapV9VZtjU63WZoUQjqtSF1nKE kQO2ieoS7kTkWQ1WyMBvDMdUJJGCFinU2HMIusnSZrp9xE0+UU2HTjB4eYEQP4KOVEJ8 NQXLexO/+Z4e5aYqmNlym3T4DfTBF2hko8VM9k1tyneqtVxryXe9HVLBOOUmmPVQdp84 HdNIdESN1WQCLCVXt2lNGD/3fYvBT2GWosLARPC7NF1htD0Nge5PhjvHMj6nnrqS/wIS Kewg== X-Received: by 10.202.226.17 with SMTP id z17mr15614775oig.16.1439767374946; Sun, 16 Aug 2015 16:22:54 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <55D1167B.1060107@gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <55D1167B.1060107@gmail.com> From: Andrew LeCody Date: Sun, 16 Aug 2015 23:22:45 +0000 Message-ID: To: Cameron Garnham , bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a1141b454f16a64051d75f63c 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 Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Bitcoin XT 0.11A 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: Sun, 16 Aug 2015 23:22:56 -0000 --001a1141b454f16a64051d75f63c Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Cam, your scenario makes no sense. > 1. Spoil the ballot. Have Bitcoin Core propagate the Bitcoin XT version string. > 2. Encourage all miners to false vote for the Bitcoin XT fork. This would obliterate any confidence in Bitcoin Core. I seriously doubt anyone would actually be ok with a pull request implementing this. > 3. Setup good Atomic Swap markets. Who would bother writing this code, let alone trading on these markets? > 4. Setup a fork of Bitcoin XT that allows people to easily make a transaction only on the XT fork (while leaving the original BTC coins untouched). I doubt this is even possible. On Sun, Aug 16, 2015 at 6:02 PM Cameron Garnham via bitcoin-dev < bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote: > I think that it is important to note that Bitcoin XT faces a natural > uphill battle. > > Since it is possible to setup atomic inter-fork coin trades. I do not > see how Bitcoin XT could possibly win if Satoshi decides to sell 10000 > XTBTC for BTC everyday for the first 100 days after the fork. > > In many ways Satoshi gets to decide the winning fork just by his huge > economic investment in Bitcoin. > > > Here is some simple game-theory for non-consensus forks: > > 1. Spoil the ballot. Have Bitcoin Core propagate the Bitcoin XT version > string. > > 2. Encourage all miners to false vote for the Bitcoin XT fork. > > - Now people have no-idea what % of the economy Bitcoin XT holds. - > Making it impossible for people to put economic faith behind Bitcoin XT. > > 3. Setup good Atomic Swap markets. > > 4. Setup a fork of Bitcoin XT that allows people to easily make a > transaction only on the XT fork (while leaving the original BTC coins > untouched). > > > This means that the Bitcoin XT fork will be born per-mature. Probably > with only a small % of hashing power behind it (contrary to the almost > 100% that falsely claim to support it). It will be embarrassing that for > the goal of larger blocks, XT instead has blocks (before re-adjustment) > every 2h. > > > The price for XTBTC coins will plummet, Satoshi progressively dumping > his 1M stash over a year or so will make sure that it doesn't recover > either. > > > I cannot see how Bitcoin XT is but-not in a extremely weak position from > game theory. > > I'm sure smarter people than I could come up with even more ways to > disrupt non-consensus forks. > > Cam. > > > > On 16/8/2015 6:39 AM, muyuubyou via bitcoin-dev wrote: > > I posted this to /r/BitcoinMarkets but I thought I might post it here a= s > > well. > > > > --- > > Currently 0 mined blocks have voted for XT. > > > > If it ever gets close to even 50%, many things can happen that would > > reshape the game completely. > > > > For instance: > > > > - Core could start boycotting XT by not relying to them and/or not > relying > > from them. > > > > - Core could appropriate the version string of XT, making it impossible > to > > know how much they are progressing and a losing bet to actually execute > the > > fork. > > > > This kind of node war if the factions were sizeable would make it very > > risky to transact at all - balances in new addresses could end up > > vanishing. Usability of the system would plummet. > > > > Note that any disagreement between the network and the biggest economic > > actors - mainly the exchanges at this point, "wallet services" maybe - > > would mean BTC plummets. Hard. And so would confidence. > > > > It's a risky game to play. > > --- > > > > PS: I consider this attempt at takeover about as foul as it gets. The > > equivalent of repeating a referendum until a yes is obtained: the > > reasonable reaction to this is actively blocking said "referendum". The= re > > was a fair play alternative which is voting through coinbase scriptSig > like > > plain 8MBers are doing, or like BIP 100 proposes for dynamic adjustment= . > > Once a majority is obtained in this way, devs have to react or if they > > don't then this sort of foul play would be justified. But this wasn't t= he > > case. > > > > ----- > > =E7=82=BA=E3=81=9B=E3=81=B0=E6=88=90=E3=82=8B > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > bitcoin-dev mailing list > > bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org > > https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev > > > > _______________________________________________ > bitcoin-dev mailing list > bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org > https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev > --001a1141b454f16a64051d75f63c Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Cam, your scenario makes no sense.

>= =C2=A01. Spoil the ballot. Have Bitcoin Core propagate the Bitcoin XT versi= on
string.
> 2. Encourage all miners to false vote for the Bitcoin= XT fork.

This would obliterate any confidence in Bitcoin Co= re. I seriously doubt anyone would actually be ok with a pull request=C2=A0= implementing=C2=A0this.

> 3. Setup good Atomic Swap m= arkets.

Who would bother writing th= is code, let alone trading on these markets?

> 4. Setup a fork of Bitcoin XT that allows people to easil= y make a
transaction only on the XT fork (while leaving the or= iginal BTC coins
untouched).

I dou= bt this is even possible.

=
On Sun, Aug 16, 2015 at 6:02 PM Cameron Garnham via bitcoi= n-dev <bitcoin-= dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
I think that it is important to note that Bitcoin XT faces a natu= ral
uphill battle.

Since it is possible to setup atomic inter-fork coin trades. I do not
see how Bitcoin XT could possibly win if Satoshi decides to sell 10000
XTBTC for BTC everyday for the first 100 days after the fork.

In many ways Satoshi gets to decide the winning fork just by his huge
economic investment in Bitcoin.


Here is some simple game-theory for non-consensus forks:

1. Spoil the ballot. Have Bitcoin Core propagate the Bitcoin XT version
string.

2. Encourage all miners to false vote for the Bitcoin XT fork.

- Now people have no-idea what % of the economy Bitcoin XT holds. -
Making it impossible for people to put economic faith behind Bitcoin XT.
3. Setup good Atomic Swap markets.

4. Setup a fork of Bitcoin XT that allows people to easily make a
transaction only on the XT fork (while leaving the original BTC coins
untouched).


This means that the Bitcoin XT fork will be born per-mature. Probably
with only a small % of hashing power behind it (contrary to the almost
100% that falsely claim to support it). It will be embarrassing that for the goal of larger blocks, XT instead has blocks (before re-adjustment)
every 2h.


The price for XTBTC coins will plummet, Satoshi progressively dumping
his 1M stash over a year or so will make sure that it doesn't recover either.


I cannot see how Bitcoin XT is but-not in a extremely weak position from game theory.

I'm sure smarter people than I could come up with even more ways to
disrupt non-consensus forks.

Cam.



On 16/8/2015 6:39 AM, muyuubyou via bitcoin-dev wrote:
> I posted this to /r/BitcoinMarkets but I thought I might post it here = as
> well.
>
> ---
> Currently 0 mined blocks have voted for XT.
>
> If it ever gets close to even 50%, many things can happen that would > reshape the game completely.
>
> For instance:
>
> - Core could start boycotting XT by not relying to them and/or not rel= ying
> from them.
>
> - Core could appropriate the version string of XT, making it impossibl= e to
> know how much they are progressing and a losing bet to actually execut= e the
> fork.
>
> This kind of node war if the factions were sizeable would make it very=
> risky to transact at all - balances in new addresses could end up
> vanishing. Usability of the system would plummet.
>
> Note that any disagreement between the network and the biggest economi= c
> actors - mainly the exchanges at this point, "wallet services&quo= t; maybe -
> would mean BTC plummets. Hard. And so would confidence.
>
> It's a risky game to play.
> ---
>
> PS: I consider this attempt at takeover about as foul as it gets. The<= br> > equivalent of repeating a referendum until a yes is obtained: the
> reasonable reaction to this is actively blocking said "referendum= ". There
> was a fair play alternative which is voting through coinbase scriptSig= like
> plain 8MBers are doing, or like BIP 100 proposes for dynamic adjustmen= t.
> Once a majority is obtained in this way, devs have to react or if they=
> don't then this sort of foul play would be justified. But this was= n't the
> case.
>
> -----
> =E7=82=BA=E3=81=9B=E3=81=B0=E6=88=90=E3=82=8B
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> bitcoin-dev mailing list
> bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org= /mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
>

_______________________________________________
bitcoin-dev mailing list
= bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mail= man/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
--001a1141b454f16a64051d75f63c--