From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from sog-mx-3.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.193] helo=mx.sourceforge.net) by sfs-ml-1.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76) (envelope-from ) id 1WcweA-0001Yr-Ev for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Wed, 23 Apr 2014 12:51:30 +0000 Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-3.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of gmail.com designates 209.85.214.170 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.85.214.170; envelope-from=mh.in.england@gmail.com; helo=mail-ob0-f170.google.com; Received: from mail-ob0-f170.google.com ([209.85.214.170]) by sog-mx-3.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128) (Exim 4.76) id 1Wcwe9-00023E-HM for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Wed, 23 Apr 2014 12:51:30 +0000 Received: by mail-ob0-f170.google.com with SMTP id vb8so959605obc.15 for ; Wed, 23 Apr 2014 05:51:24 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.60.76.194 with SMTP id m2mr12719161oew.47.1398257484126; Wed, 23 Apr 2014 05:51:24 -0700 (PDT) Sender: mh.in.england@gmail.com Received: by 10.76.96.180 with HTTP; Wed, 23 Apr 2014 05:51:24 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: Date: Wed, 23 Apr 2014 14:51:24 +0200 X-Google-Sender-Auth: eTyjyn9OVMCvHgx8yAYkV5x7_cE Message-ID: From: Mike Hearn To: Christophe Biocca Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=047d7b33cea6a55de704f7b53064 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: 1Wcwe9-00023E-HM 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: Wed, 23 Apr 2014 12:51:30 -0000 --047d7b33cea6a55de704f7b53064 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 On Wed, Apr 23, 2014 at 2:43 PM, Christophe Biocca < christophe.biocca@gmail.com> wrote: > 1. This provides a very strong incentive to always vote for > reallocating a block if it isn't yours If everyone votes to reallocate everyone elses blocks all the time, then you'd end up losing your own coins too, so this doesn't seem like a workable strategy. > a) Requiring supermajorities > c) Burning, rather than reallocating, the coins. Miners' immediate > incentive to attack honest pools is much reduced. > I'm OK with burning actually. The total amount of coins in the system essentially defines its maximum price resolution. Ideally we'd not lose resolution, but it's less important than having a system that does actually work. Moreover, this sort of system is like double spending defence itself - if it does work, it doesn't need to actually be done very frequently because people know the safeguards work and don't try. So in practice total loss of resolution should be limited. > 2. BitUndo gets paid using additional txouts in the double-spend > transaction, no by miner's fees. Right. It's indeed an assumption that block rewards matter to miners, even the ones that have double spend revenues. --047d7b33cea6a55de704f7b53064 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
On W= ed, Apr 23, 2014 at 2:43 PM, Christophe Biocca <christophe.biocc= a@gmail.com> wrote:
1. This provides a very strong incentive to = always vote for
reallocating a block if it isn't yours
=C2=A0
If everyone votes to reallocate everyone elses blocks all the time, then = you'd end up losing your own coins too, so this doesn't seem like a= workable strategy.=C2=A0
=C2=A0
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 a) Requiring = supermajorities
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 c) Burning, rather than reallocating, the = coins. Miners' immediate
incentive to attack honest pools is much reduced.

=
I'm OK with burning actually. The total amount of coins in t= he system essentially defines its maximum price resolution. Ideally we'= d not lose resolution, but it's less important than having a system tha= t does actually work. Moreover, this sort of system is like double spending= defence itself - if it does work, it doesn't need to actually be done = very frequently because people know the safeguards work and don't try. = So in practice total loss of resolution should be limited.
=C2=A0
2. BitUndo gets paid using = additional txouts in the double-spend
transaction, no by miner's fees.

Right.= It's indeed an assumption that block rewards matter to miners, even th= e ones that have double spend revenues.
--047d7b33cea6a55de704f7b53064--