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 64939E8A for ; Sun, 20 Dec 2015 07:56:25 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from mail-qg0-f52.google.com (mail-qg0-f52.google.com [209.85.192.52]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4992BA0 for ; Sun, 20 Dec 2015 07:56:24 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-qg0-f52.google.com with SMTP id k90so85425931qge.0 for ; Sat, 19 Dec 2015 23:56:24 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc:content-type; bh=VArz4TIRKWQMAVmKhTkLiBaQmqmL0+e97PxsteD6WvQ=; b=uWL1SxpPqZBUmhC+D6VXFbY0yI8nyLNV38R/MFeCsDrfpXQi4q4MaqyQ0WdiTE5zZZ GuVD35kTF2qUTHIiPe4PEwP2uEQ4Ila5OP8/INkS4T9RehG7zSNhZo0ibvAzInwRdYXB lsOnv7Syl6WUEPDIL8TcFZN1XI91yvdJYd4rXanNdrp5iCb4OemLUJK8exVXS+mtEyIt 7NhLUABbFsWfgUh4yqqHYZe9v5fNjCj+iOlQKI+eiLDxstMR0QPfeDg2SAAVpl8AKav0 BVYgRBjOIrIVJdvTHKXB0KaxJfZCyVd0u+OCsgLamLz8ZYabfWIzn3SFayM1me4xcRg4 72/w== X-Received: by 10.140.177.3 with SMTP id x3mr17876371qhx.82.1450598183379; Sat, 19 Dec 2015 23:56:23 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.140.29.73 with HTTP; Sat, 19 Dec 2015 23:56:03 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: References: <20151219184240.GB12893@muck> <219f125cee6ca68fd27016642e38fdf1@xbt.hk> From: =?UTF-8?Q?Emin_G=C3=BCn_Sirer?= Date: Sun, 20 Dec 2015 02:56:03 -0500 Message-ID: To: Chris Priest Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a113a6a8e6eab3e05274fb591 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 X-Mailman-Approved-At: Sun, 20 Dec 2015 08:15:23 +0000 Cc: Bitcoin Dev Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] We need to fix the block withholding attack 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: Sun, 20 Dec 2015 07:56:25 -0000 --001a113a6a8e6eab3e05274fb591 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Initial reactions aren't always accurate, people's views change, and science has its insurmountable way of convincing people. Gavin [1] and others [2] now cite selfish mining as a concern in the block size debate, and more importantly, the paper has been peer-reviewed, cited, and even built-upon [3]. Let's elevate the discussion, shall we? [1] Here's Gavin concerned about selfish mining: http://gavinandresen.ninja/are-bigger-blocks-better-for-bigger-miners [2] Here's Adam: http://bitcoin-development.narkive.com/mvI8Wpjp/dynamic-limit-to-the-block-size-bip-draft-discussion [3] This is a very nice extension of our work: Ayelet Sapirshtein, Yonatan Sompolinsky, Aviv Zohar: http://arxiv.org/abs/1507.06183 --001a113a6a8e6eab3e05274fb591 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Initial reactions aren't always accurate, people&= #39;s views change, and=C2=A0
science has its insurmountable way = of convincing people. Gavin [1]=C2=A0
and others [2] now cite sel= fish mining as a concern in the block size=C2=A0
debate, and more= importantly, the paper has been peer-reviewed,=C2=A0
cited, and = even built-upon [3].

Let's elevate the discuss= ion, shall we?

[1] Here's Gavin concerned abou= t selfish mining:=C2=A0

[2] Here&#= 39;s Adam:=C2=A0

[3] This is a very nice ex= tension of our work:
Ayelet Sapirshtein, Yonatan Sompolinsky, Avi= v Zohar:

=
--001a113a6a8e6eab3e05274fb591--