From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from sog-mx-2.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.192] helo=mx.sourceforge.net) by sfs-ml-2.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76) (envelope-from ) id 1WdKLJ-0002Pd-L6 for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Thu, 24 Apr 2014 14:09:37 +0000 Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-2.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of gmail.com designates 209.85.214.177 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.85.214.177; envelope-from=mh.in.england@gmail.com; helo=mail-ob0-f177.google.com; Received: from mail-ob0-f177.google.com ([209.85.214.177]) by sog-mx-2.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128) (Exim 4.76) id 1WdKLI-0007iU-UB for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Thu, 24 Apr 2014 14:09:37 +0000 Received: by mail-ob0-f177.google.com with SMTP id wp18so2631315obc.36 for ; Thu, 24 Apr 2014 07:09:31 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.182.236.162 with SMTP id uv2mr1748419obc.40.1398348571602; Thu, 24 Apr 2014 07:09:31 -0700 (PDT) Sender: mh.in.england@gmail.com Received: by 10.76.96.180 with HTTP; Thu, 24 Apr 2014 07:09:31 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <20140424134441.GE16884@savin> References: <20140424134441.GE16884@savin> Date: Thu, 24 Apr 2014 16:09:31 +0200 X-Google-Sender-Auth: 55aWfC4JDmhugYuMTDJ0DUoFYa4 Message-ID: From: Mike Hearn To: Peter Todd Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a11c2eb52e1fa3604f7ca65a7 X-Spam-Score: -0.5 (/) X-Spam-Report: Spam Filtering performed by mx.sourceforge.net. See http://spamassassin.org/tag/ for more details. -1.5 SPF_CHECK_PASS SPF reports sender host as permitted sender for sender-domain 0.0 FREEMAIL_FROM Sender email is commonly abused enduser mail provider (mh.in.england[at]gmail.com) -0.0 SPF_PASS SPF: sender matches SPF record 1.0 HTML_MESSAGE BODY: HTML included in message 0.1 DKIM_SIGNED Message has a DKIM or DK signature, not necessarily valid -0.1 DKIM_VALID Message has at least one valid DKIM or DK signature X-Headers-End: 1WdKLI-0007iU-UB Cc: Bitcoin Dev Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] Coinbase reallocation to discourage Finney attacks X-BeenThere: bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 24 Apr 2014 14:09:37 -0000 --001a11c2eb52e1fa3604f7ca65a7 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 > > Like I said before, that leads to the obvious next step of > deleting/stealing their coinbases if they don't identify themselves. > And as I said before, that's a huge leap. A majority of miners deciding double spending needs tougher enforcement doesn't imply they also think all miners should identify themselves. Those are unrelated things. This kind of totally unsupported "obvious next step" argument can be applied to any proposal in any walk of life. We developed SPV clients? The obvious next step is that miners have to stop being anonymous. We developed floating fees? The obvious next step is that miners have to stop being anonymous. The prior arguments sound absurd exactly because they're not obvious or even logical - same as this. --001a11c2eb52e1fa3604f7ca65a7 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Like I said before, that leads t= o the obvious next step of
deleting/stealing their coinbases if they don't identify themselves.

And as I said before, that's a huge l= eap. A majority of miners deciding double spending needs tougher enforcemen= t doesn't imply they also think all miners should identify themselves. = Those are unrelated things.

This kind of totally unsupported "obvious next ste= p" argument can be applied to any proposal in any walk of life. We dev= eloped SPV clients? The obvious next step is that miners have to stop being= anonymous. We developed floating fees? The obvious next step is that miner= s have to stop being anonymous. The prior arguments sound absurd exactly be= cause they're not obvious or even logical - same as this.


--001a11c2eb52e1fa3604f7ca65a7--