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 3CE141953 for ; Tue, 29 Sep 2015 18:23:58 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from mail-io0-f180.google.com (mail-io0-f180.google.com [209.85.223.180]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7669AF5 for ; Tue, 29 Sep 2015 18:23:57 +0000 (UTC) Received: by iofh134 with SMTP id h134so20760914iof.0 for ; Tue, 29 Sep 2015 11:23:57 -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=HZIfDpSVhVeoZnH8WC3AZd9dogDk1qqiqfg8qCV9TMg=; b=k0py48UFEAjhnxEvHodkA0967Lgbf3w70LwCxcgAJvwmnvTwrS1eeZav6pfwhnnhiw oRXnTK0+WblCZXKt3LlAF7NPWuTIormdRfmEY2brJQ949/6VZTAWNj2IqefVr6U9g5OP MobtRnONuCJH/FP5FgreNc8us+Oa5vFp1V4d8+FCWyVg6fwHmGM/a/iemgQ0UGJ6VkNd Hu6yBGfrHnIHGrLN9DOedsmuRxgJxfBqSS+JyVUYT0AysOiVrOxQuw6JaPg5JrQruuq+ zUCm+N0fMwA0zsz+IFDSxE2zWs7rWjgGGCkSlyHUwOwvzRPYn4U3ARS5yAaDwxikfs8B eZMQ== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.107.40.12 with SMTP id o12mr169075ioo.84.1443551036801; Tue, 29 Sep 2015 11:23:56 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.79.69.135 with HTTP; Tue, 29 Sep 2015 11:23:56 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: Date: Tue, 29 Sep 2015 13:23:56 -0500 Message-ID: From: Allen Piscitello To: Gavin Andresen Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a1141d150c387f50520e6ea17 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 18:23:58 -0000 --001a1141d150c387f50520e6ea17 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 >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. When you start with the assumption that anyone who disagrees with you is insane or crazy, I can see why you have such difficulty. On Tue, Sep 29, 2015 at 1:01 PM, Gavin Andresen wrote: > 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 > --001a1141d150c387f50520e6ea17 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
>I started this t= hread as a sanity check on myself, because I keep seeing smart people sayin= g 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.
<= span style=3D"font-size:12.8px">
When you start with the assumption that anyone who disagrees wi= th you is insane or crazy, I can see why you have such difficulty.


On Tue, Sep 29, 2015 at 1:0= 1 PM, Gavin Andresen <gavinandresen@gmail.com> wrote:<= br>
We really shouldn't = have to go over "Bitcoin 101" on this mailing list, and this disc= ussion should move to the not-yet-created more general discussion list.=C2= =A0 I started this thread as a sanity check on myself, because I keep seein= g smart people saying that two chains could persist for more than a few day= s 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 transactio= n.

Running a full node doesn't help.

On Tue, Sep 29, 2015 at 1:55 PM, Allen Piscitello = <allen.p= iscitello@gmail.com> wrote:
>A dishonest mi= ner majority can commit fraud against you, they can mine only empty blocks,= they can do various other things that render your money worthless.<= div>
Mining empty blocks is not fraud.
=
If you want to use terms like "honest miners" and &q= uot;fraud", please define them so we can at least be on the same page.=

I am defining an honest miner as one that fo= llows the rules of the protocol.=C2=A0 Obviously your definition is differe= nt.

On Tue, Sep 29, 2015 at 12:51 PM, Mike Hearn <hearn@vin= umeris.com> wrote:
>because Bitcoin'= s basic security assumption is that a supermajority of miners are 'hone= st.'

Only if you rely on SPV.

No, you rely on miner= s honesty even if you run a full node. This is in the white paper. A dishon= est miner majority can commit fraud against you, they can mine only empty b= locks, they can do various other things that render your money worthless.




<= /div>--
--
Gavin= Andresen
--001a1141d150c387f50520e6ea17--