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 9B4008F5 for ; Fri, 26 May 2017 14:39:32 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from mail-qk0-f178.google.com (mail-qk0-f178.google.com [209.85.220.178]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 91AF7134 for ; Fri, 26 May 2017 14:39:31 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-qk0-f178.google.com with SMTP id y201so8865428qka.0 for ; Fri, 26 May 2017 07:39:31 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id :subject:to:cc; bh=4skAs6LPkRgi25hiQecPpbb0B9++P3lj0Z3S95UE6Pc=; b=ZqXDhkpGjJ23nShAN3XR9n+cb/TnH0lZngrzG8jHqPszmv0CFcyU+nV4LgClxvpBWd 6QW4FEL/kVXCzBSIZhGxgM6dNI0o+L0awK9s6wIdafHQcHv9qsqAlm0Tcx3FTX4ZxYuK 4sZt2LlYBVbtyW2BUHMOUVk1icEhnVvdPuFqTOAHMX+GP2dx0jVEP0IhNKOGNbGYDGk/ 3LqwOfjXDv/xbomsOtc32GdN+4vptkYKvaxgNVPIUkUSsr8xAZtZI8DsfJaVUZhh6QdU HUABwYTT/FwPHMP9Kl1az3hGgBRBv18+C7abda7EPBeSmBDH4Kx+h0ybhIyX9UYXFJnz Gw/g== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:from :date:message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=4skAs6LPkRgi25hiQecPpbb0B9++P3lj0Z3S95UE6Pc=; b=GxG8oT6NyNG85jH7Z3q0vvd+sKjBQvY2vy9WDGO9CSc+SepHmPc6akki0irWujcVob 0ubIqyWDe7e0T4USIRGi/N1OeuffXLGFE2etAbjcnUgocYhdhsiw5I9EhizM9C9MCGS1 M4PhknAwilWMMbqVQL5W+CsJ1bsMls858LJp0p5f5DTdf+V9N3Fg9xWHK6umi4AlJfxl laGme/GkYbiNMK7DTLibgYo/4HE/7wrZjOVwvfCjksf7aYu0SQdXqlIb6+GEidSva4aq 3hLXdPYPzCfN4RpGCGFqqxPtjP+KsMRPfCIZcG4BeYGQXqbCQDiTvQDzc00XYSspxGRq 3QvA== X-Gm-Message-State: AODbwcB8A+2tA0HL0IBfvEXkKlbrx9vE5aL2VNtFmXKsTEN0uhibR0e7 t3z0cp9Kpy0tbtrmoE2IkRZjC3TRAA== X-Received: by 10.55.1.79 with SMTP id 76mr2471624qkb.69.1495809570762; Fri, 26 May 2017 07:39:30 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Sender: earonesty@gmail.com Received: by 10.237.48.102 with HTTP; Fri, 26 May 2017 07:39:30 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <2575282.hbjRTIzDqY@strawberry> References: <2E6BB6FA-65FF-497F-8AEA-4CC8655BAE69@gmail.com> <2575282.hbjRTIzDqY@strawberry> From: Erik Aronesty Date: Fri, 26 May 2017 10:39:30 -0400 X-Google-Sender-Auth: MygnbLdoEJKf-3tEOVMtgRgnbtQ Message-ID: To: Tom Zander Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="001a11451c0e1df90605506e4ecb" X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.4 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID, FREEMAIL_FROM, HTML_MESSAGE, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE, RCVD_IN_SORBS_SPAM autolearn=no version=3.3.1 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on smtp1.linux-foundation.org X-Mailman-Approved-At: Fri, 26 May 2017 14:49:53 +0000 Cc: Bitcoin Protocol Discussion Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Emergency Deployment of SegWit as a partial mitigation of CVE-2017-9230 X-BeenThere: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Bitcoin Protocol Discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 26 May 2017 14:39:32 -0000 --001a11451c0e1df90605506e4ecb Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Linking a bit4 MASF with a bit4 "lock in of a hard fork in 6 months" is something that will simply never happen for basic engineering reasons. Spoonet, an oft-quoted hard fork that actually has some strong support, is a much better candidate for the code base - but not of the supposed supporters of bit4 MASF seem to be ready to roll up their sleeves and do any work at all. I mean, if they really had "millions" for development, they could just hire dome developers and built it correctly, right? But they aren't ... instead they are pumping money into "bcoin", which doesn't yet have any of the protections needed to get consensus. Maybe it will some day. Claiming that miners support segwit is disingenuous ... considering that if they supported it, they would be signaling for it today... instead of distracting the community with fake proposals that have no peer-reviewed code. On Fri, May 26, 2017 at 5:21 AM, Tom Zander via bitcoin-dev < bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote: > On Friday, 26 May 2017 10:02:27 CEST Cameron Garnham via bitcoin-dev wrot= e: > > So, I started searching for the motivations of such a large amount of t= he > > mining hash-rate holding a position that isn=E2=80=99t at-all represent= ed in the > > wider Bitcoin Community. My study of ASICBOOST lead to a =E2=80=98bingo= =E2=80=99 moment: > > If one assumes that the 67% of the hash rate that refuse to signal for > > SegWit are using ASICBOOST. The entire picture of this political > > stalemate became much more understandable. > > I=E2=80=99m uncomfortable with your =E2=80=9Cbingo=E2=80=9D moment, and y= our huge assumption to get > to make it fit. > The reality is that we have seen repeatedly that the miners are stating > they > are Ok with an ASICBOOST disabling change. > The larger mining industry has just this week come to consensus about a > better way to activate SegWit! Referring to the New York consensus > meeting!! > https://medium.com/@DCGco/bitcoin-scaling-agreement-at- > consensus-2017-133521fe9a77 > > I question your conclusions of miners not supporting SegWit because of > ASICBOOST, the evidence shows this accusation to be false. > > You openly admitting here that you use ASICBOOST as a tool to push SegWit > is > further making me uncomfortable. Your intention may be pure, but the > methods > are not. > And on that I agree with Andreas, that taints this proposal. > > -- > Tom Zander > Blog: https://zander.github.io > Vlog: https://vimeo.com/channels/tomscryptochannel > _______________________________________________ > bitcoin-dev mailing list > bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org > https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev > --001a11451c0e1df90605506e4ecb Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Linking a bit4 MASF with a bit4 "lock in of a hard fo= rk in 6 months" is something that will simply never happen for basic e= ngineering reasons.=C2=A0

Spoonet, an oft-quoted hard fork that act= ually has some strong support, is a much better candidate for the code base= - but not of the supposed supporters of bit4 MASF seem to be ready to roll= up their sleeves and do any work at all.=C2=A0=C2=A0 I mean, if they reall= y had "millions" for development, they could just hire dome devel= opers and built it correctly, right?=C2=A0=C2=A0 But they aren't ... in= stead they are pumping money into "bcoin", which doesn't yet = have any of the protections needed to get consensus.=C2=A0=C2=A0 Maybe it w= ill some day.

Claiming that miners support segwit is disingenuous .= .. considering that if they supported it, they would be signaling for it to= day... instead of distracting the community with fake proposals that have n= o peer-reviewed code.


On Fri, May 26, 2017 at 5:21 AM, Tom Zander via bitcoin-d= ev <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
On Friday, 26 = May 2017 10:02:27 CEST Cameron Garnham via bitcoin-dev wrote:
> So, I started searching for the motivations of such a large amount of = the
> mining hash-rate holding a position that isn=E2=80=99t at-all represen= ted in the
> wider Bitcoin Community. My study of ASICBOOST lead to a =E2=80=98bing= o=E2=80=99 moment:
> If one assumes that the 67% of the hash rate that refuse to signal for=
> SegWit are using ASICBOOST. The entire picture of this political
> stalemate became much more understandable.

I=E2=80=99m uncomfortable with your =E2=80=9Cbingo=E2=80=9D moment, = and your huge assumption to get
to make it fit.
The reality is that we have seen repeatedly that the miners are stating the= y
are Ok with an ASICBOOST disabling change.
The larger mining industry has just this week come to consensus about a
better way to activate SegWit! Referring to the New York consensus meeting!= !
https://medium.com= /@DCGco/bitcoin-scaling-agreement-at-consensus-2017-133521fe9a77<= /a>

I question your conclusions of miners not supporting SegWit because of
ASICBOOST, the evidence shows this accusation to be false.

You openly admitting here that you use ASICBOOST as a tool to push SegWit i= s
further making me uncomfortable. Your intention may be pure, but the method= s
are not.
And on that I agree with Andreas, that taints this proposal.

--
Tom Zander
Blog: https://zander.github.io
Vlog: https://vimeo.com/channels/tomscryptochannel<= /a>
_____________________= __________________________
bitcoin-dev mailing list
bitcoin-dev@lists.= linuxfoundation.org
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org= /mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev

--001a11451c0e1df90605506e4ecb--