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 18C64279 for ; Fri, 31 Jul 2015 16:23:01 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from mail-wi0-f172.google.com (mail-wi0-f172.google.com [209.85.212.172]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4295A16F for ; Fri, 31 Jul 2015 16:23:00 +0000 (UTC) Received: by wibud3 with SMTP id ud3so38557595wib.0 for ; Fri, 31 Jul 2015 09:22:59 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject :from:to:content-type; bh=OcIXcnkc1ab1IjQnAgUYkcDMSP/M1Wlk0BVflGrh+Rw=; b=ft9wrubv8QVMWRw9EiCEDtushtrsNYPTsc6WCUlfZ+Fr6MVPkYI/7qAiE6vIOzsCfz bdMTuhFcPglmbn8lU5EuYwzm5YqkStr4oSgNgS/UyBN6FvwG88G7akKwFeQTR0lLdl1f 9ODQz60zCiA4D24ZVh8LAF873abXYjyJZQXtds54oczYky0Ll+0KHTbJbOTDCb8c4IxB u/xUQ3NqLCutgDN7HeFPQ+8szF5GfzZYANTgQNi3IzgzWEtf0se16TNYtiOSWxmic6aa VDZOOpnrXQx594ItDa7KJtFytJ2UigdLWDqLW5ygA5WNJsFY4xnapoEOkuTli05bcMFI puIQ== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.180.20.198 with SMTP id p6mr8059065wie.38.1438359778780; Fri, 31 Jul 2015 09:22:58 -0700 (PDT) Sender: dscotese@gmail.com Received: by 10.27.184.134 with HTTP; Fri, 31 Jul 2015 09:22:58 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: <20150731083943.Horde.68uT9J78H_PdIgIwQP5frA1@server47.web-hosting.com> <20150731130714.Horde.PvL1IB3Kf5S6GAA73N-HOw1@server47.web-hosting.com> Date: Fri, 31 Jul 2015 09:22:58 -0700 X-Google-Sender-Auth: k7uGJttWFbuNzjrar2Ki1KWfqfI Message-ID: From: Dave Scotese To: Bitcoin Dev Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=bcaec53f397dac6e28051c2e3b29 X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,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] A compromise between BIP101 and Pieter's proposal 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: Fri, 31 Jul 2015 16:23:01 -0000 --bcaec53f397dac6e28051c2e3b29 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Here are some books that will help more people understand why Adam's concern is important: Kicking the Dragon (by Larken Rose) The State (by Franz Oppenheimer) Like he said, it isn't much about bitcoin. Our crypto is just one of the defenses we've created, and understanding what it defends will help us maintain its value. Dave On Fri, Jul 31, 2015 at 6:16 AM, Adam Back via bitcoin-dev < > bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote: > > I think trust the data-center logic obviously fails, and I was talking > about this scenario in the post you are replying to. You are trusting the > data-center operator period. If one could trust data-centers to run > verified code, to not get hacked, filter traffic, respond to court orders > without notifying you etc that would be great but that's unfortunately not > what happens. > > Data-center operators are bound to follow laws, including NSLs and gag > orders. They also get hacked, employ humans who can be corrupt, > blackmailed, and themselves centralisation points for policy attack. > Snowden related disclosures and keeping aware of security show this is very > real. > > This isn't much about bitcoin even, its just security reality for hosting > anything intended to be secure via decentralisation, or just hosting in > general while at risk of political or policy attack. > --bcaec53f397dac6e28051c2e3b29 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Here are some books that will help mor= e people understand why Adam's concern is important:
Kicking t= he Dragon (by Larken Rose)
The State (by Franz Oppenheimer)
Like he said, it isn't much about bitcoin.=C2=A0 Our crypto is j= ust one of the defenses we've created, and understanding what it defend= s will help us maintain its value.

Dave

On Fri, Jul 31, 2015 at 6:16 AM, Adam Back via b= itcoin-dev <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org&= gt; wrote:

I think trust the data-center logic obviously fails, and I was talking=20 about this scenario in the post you are replying to.=C2=A0 You are trusting= =20 the data-center operator period.=C2=A0 If one could trust data-centers to r= un verified code, to not get hacked, filter traffic, respond to court=20 orders without notifying you etc that would be great but that's=20 unfortunately not what happens.

Data-center operators are bound to follow laws, including=20 NSLs and gag orders.=C2=A0 They also get hacked, employ humans who can be= =20 corrupt, blackmailed, and themselves centralisation points for policy=20 attack.=C2=A0 Snowden related disclosures and keeping aware of security sho= w=20 this is very real.

This isn't much about bitcoin even, its just security=20 reality for hosting anything intended to be secure via decentralisation, or just hosting in general while at risk of political or policy attack.


--bcaec53f397dac6e28051c2e3b29--