From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from sog-mx-4.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.194] helo=mx.sourceforge.net) by sfs-ml-4.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76) (envelope-from ) id 1WdKe5-0001Jg-UV for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Thu, 24 Apr 2014 14:29:01 +0000 Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-4.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of gmail.com designates 209.85.214.179 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.85.214.179; envelope-from=mh.in.england@gmail.com; helo=mail-ob0-f179.google.com; Received: from mail-ob0-f179.google.com ([209.85.214.179]) by sog-mx-4.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128) (Exim 4.76) id 1WdKe4-0002B0-7W for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Thu, 24 Apr 2014 14:29:01 +0000 Received: by mail-ob0-f179.google.com with SMTP id vb8so2725666obc.38 for ; Thu, 24 Apr 2014 07:28:54 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.60.132.236 with SMTP id ox12mr923429oeb.81.1398349734812; Thu, 24 Apr 2014 07:28:54 -0700 (PDT) Sender: mh.in.england@gmail.com Received: by 10.76.96.180 with HTTP; Thu, 24 Apr 2014 07:28:54 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: Date: Thu, 24 Apr 2014 16:28:54 +0200 X-Google-Sender-Auth: GOb359WPhBjx2XtWPVY6pkfKNWw Message-ID: From: Mike Hearn To: =?UTF-8?B?Sm9yZ2UgVGltw7Nu?= Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=047d7b41cd2837237604f7caab62 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: 1WdKe4-0002B0-7W 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 14:29:02 -0000 --047d7b41cd2837237604f7caab62 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 > > And that's achieved through proof of work, not through "miner's honesty". > You can't disentangle the two. Proof of work just makes a block chain hard to tamper with. What it contains is arbitrary. Honest miners build a block chain that's intended to stop double spending. Dishonest miners don't. They're both engaging in proof of work, to different ends. > Whatever, let's keep calling stupid miners "honest miners" > No, let's not. Your definition of "smart miner" is one I'd called "stupid miner" (or possibly "short bitcoin miner"). They are miners who would reduce the value of their coins, by making their own system less useful. That's not smart, that's simply short termism taken to an extreme, sort of like a business owner who puts so much pressure on his employees they all quit. He might have gained a bit more profit in the short term, but only at the cost of destroying his business that would have given lower but sustainable returns over the long term. > This persistent argument from authority is annoying. > Peter always says this too, but it's again an incorrect position. This is not an argument from authority. Why are we here? We are here because we were brought together by shared goals. What are those goals? They were defined at the start of the project by the creator of the project. Why do we issue 21 million coins and not 42? Because 21 million is the goal everyone signed up for. Why did everyone sign up for 21 million coins? Because that's what Satoshi picked. If someone asked us to change from 21 to 42 million coins, we'd probably say no and the justification would be that this is the number we started with. That's not "argument from authority", it's just recognition that the parameters of a shared project has to be defined somehow, and for Bitcoin it was defined at the start. Now the argument Gregory makes is that changing the block chain algorithm in this way would be a violation of the social contract. This is a generic outcome to be legitimately worried about - we don't want to change what Bitcoin is in ways that would dismay its users. That just leads to a fork. I argue that this isn't such a change because it makes nothing possible that was previously impossible, it just makes it less disruptive, and the *actual* shared goal of Bitcoin is not "preserve the block chain algorithm exactly as found in v0.1" but rather "stop double spending". You are arguing elsewhere that Bitcoin should allow double spending for a fee. That *would* be a clear violation of the social contract! > That's not what I'm saying. Miners that don't mine on top of the > longest chain are dishonest by my own definition as well. > Right, but I don't accept this definition of honesty. That's not a definition any man on the street would use: "If you pay for something with forged bank notes and walk out immediately, you are honest. But if you pay for something with forged bank notes and hang around for longer than 10 minutes, you are dishonest" That would sound silly to anyone because what's so special about 10 minutes? It's the act of passing counterfeit money and stealing from the merchant that's the dishonest act, how long it takes is irrelevant. In Bitcoin, the dishonest act by the user is signing for the same output twice (ignoring special protocols here), and the dishonest act by the miner is deviating from normal behaviour for a fee to try and trick the recipient into believing they have been paid. The exact details are something computer scientists care about, but the average Bitcoin user would not. > And I also disagree that all the people who think this way are > "hopelessly confused". We may be confused, but I think there's always > hope for removing confusions provided that there's will to learn, > which I think it is at least my case. > Indeed and that's why we have these threads! These are fundamental issues that simply must be debated. --047d7b41cd2837237604f7caab62 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
And that's achieved through proof of work, not through = "miner's honesty".

= You can't disentangle the two. Proof of work just makes a block chain h= ard to tamper with. What it contains is arbitrary. Honest miners build a bl= ock chain that's intended to stop double spending. Dishonest miners don= 't. They're both engaging in proof of work, to different ends.
=C2=A0
Whatever, let's keep calling stupid miners "honest= miners"

No, let's not. Your= definition of "smart miner" is one I'd called "stupid m= iner" (or possibly "short bitcoin miner"). They are miners w= ho would reduce the value of their coins, by making their own system less u= seful. That's not smart, that's simply short termism taken to an ex= treme, sort of like a business owner who puts so much pressure on his emplo= yees they all quit. He might have gained a bit more profit in the short ter= m, but only at the cost of destroying his business that would have given lo= wer but sustainable returns over the long term.
=C2=A0
This persistent argument from authority is annoying.

Peter always says this too, but it'= s again an incorrect position. This is not an argument from authority.

Why are we here? We are here because we were brought to= gether by shared goals.

What are those goals? They= were defined at the start of the project by the creator of the project.

Why do we issue 21 million coins and not 42? Because 21= million is the goal everyone signed up for.

Why d= id everyone sign up for 21 million coins? Because that's what Satoshi p= icked.


If someone asked us to change from 21 to= 42 million coins, we'd probably say no and the justification would be = that this is the number we started with. That's not "argument from= authority", it's just recognition that the parameters of a shared= project has to be defined somehow, and for Bitcoin it was defined at the s= tart.

Now the argument Gregory makes is that changing the blo= ck chain algorithm in this way would be a violation of the social contract.= This is a generic outcome to be legitimately worried about - we don't = want to change what Bitcoin is in ways that would dismay its users. That ju= st leads to a fork.

I argue that this isn't such a change because it ma= kes nothing possible that was previously impossible, it just makes it less = disruptive, and the actual=C2=A0shared goal of Bitcoin is not "= preserve the block chain algorithm exactly as found in v0.1" but rathe= r "stop double spending".

You are arguing elsewhere that Bitcoin should allow dou= ble spending for a fee. That would=C2=A0be a clear violation of the = social contract!=C2=A0
=C2=A0
That's not what I'm saying. Miners that don't m= ine on top of the
longest chain are dishonest by my own definition as well.
<= div>
Right, but I don't accept this definition of honesty= . That's not a definition any man on the street would use:
=C2=A0=C2=A0
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 "If you pay for something with fo= rged bank notes and walk out immediately, you are honest. But if you pay fo= r something with forged bank notes and hang around for longer than 10 minut= es, you are dishonest"

That would sound silly to anyone because what's so = special about 10 minutes? It's the act of passing counterfeit money and= stealing from the merchant that's the dishonest act, how long it takes= is irrelevant.

In Bitcoin, the dishonest act by the user is signing fo= r the same output twice (ignoring special protocols here), and the dishones= t act by the miner is deviating from normal behaviour for a fee to try and = trick the recipient into believing they have been paid. The exact details a= re something computer scientists care about, but the average Bitcoin user w= ould not.
=C2=A0
And I also disagree that all the people w= ho think this way are
"hopelessly confused". We may be confused, but I think there'= s always
hope for removing confusions provided that there's will to learn,
which I think it is at least my case.

I= ndeed and that's why we have these threads! These are fundamental issue= s that simply must be debated.
--047d7b41cd2837237604f7caab62--