From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from smtp4.osuosl.org (smtp4.osuosl.org [140.211.166.137]) by lists.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 176E6C002D for ; Fri, 21 Oct 2022 13:17:17 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by smtp4.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C928B422A9 for ; Fri, 21 Oct 2022 13:17:16 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 smtp4.osuosl.org C928B422A9 Authentication-Results: smtp4.osuosl.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com header.i=@gmail.com header.a=rsa-sha256 header.s=20210112 header.b=MhRpsN2C X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at osuosl.org X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.848 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.848 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, FREEMAIL_ENVFROM_END_DIGIT=0.25, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Received: from smtp4.osuosl.org ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (smtp4.osuosl.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id FXyX-DkTml9W for ; Fri, 21 Oct 2022 13:17:15 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.8.0 DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 smtp4.osuosl.org 1615442298 Received: from mail-pl1-x634.google.com (mail-pl1-x634.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::634]) by smtp4.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1615442298 for ; Fri, 21 Oct 2022 13:17:15 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-pl1-x634.google.com with SMTP id f9so2297763plb.13 for ; Fri, 21 Oct 2022 06:17:15 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20210112; h=references:to:cc:in-reply-to:date:subject:mime-version:message-id :from:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=XlX2orunDaamiaceUeS29kw3m1e4M0OFSN1VnhVb70o=; b=MhRpsN2C0zb4HDg+wfeTC0CgdY6oIZXO54F7/fD8qsvOYarb3A+XH5Zum40XvPNvwk HtyNTI+s+FBZ3mj1Y0oC9suBMqxA6kw/fukmQRhzb33IrgCqPhc0AiDudr1TDhsdw5z7 LYKCQwJJaWMs/ryn7FErijBZLp5q1HE/YtSBy/8MgEJZuwwHTwPlrpHVy3Ao1f+dp9SX sramRMdrEZ2h0b8ps/5J318n6MmvqXoPNirR0IG8d8E8sVzcIp7Bb5Y4jJenEoyG8pkt W/McE129Ss9pf0VeGFoZi90YVGgMKOTq2ze6I5tKeRJQFRX+c19jPFXT8d0hmZ6s85nc QyNA== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20210112; h=references:to:cc:in-reply-to:date:subject:mime-version:message-id :from:x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=XlX2orunDaamiaceUeS29kw3m1e4M0OFSN1VnhVb70o=; b=2E1p4hCg5t1E0qTLaJn+62uUM5FUUDipl/pmh9TINgM7vYaS8K0LK8tPjo4DdDI98p kdlfl2IqCTuBlIUXGi2/h+YEixX1muEHA0/SebviBSt8Ahc1jt0tCtQlnXWKQhu7MupW QNB7/WEEtH8IhQAXkfqNYI2XxjvgfR+TjOV4EcG7cO9sI9s+nbD8U/MpoMdhxhbb8VuA +Qk8wWxa64pNjm/oxgITGtivOp2NEx8MJRDzrPhT11Ud+skmRR8jn6a/p4fZYZn/J/7+ 3zw6ViJKYY1COQzNRNWiXrnflsqg7YbIdtfdwhiAvmpxb0Znj7UywcqTCcNg4rF1kKrU +pSg== X-Gm-Message-State: ACrzQf1FhTKHlWvsvq1ByXTot08mZv4rmuItBB4J8fNAIG4vyXuI9LaY 0DVMWFYfgNKDDtt+54pEOlC+KIf78dTqTA== X-Google-Smtp-Source: AMsMyM6mlSHC3cE8iV9QgI4F/4uIb6AR5/UxzbXzWk2lu+gzreJE3X7BriJoQaufdzI40Q0CYAcVug== X-Received: by 2002:a17:90a:50:b0:20a:b146:e75e with SMTP id 16-20020a17090a005000b0020ab146e75emr22238410pjb.216.1666358234312; Fri, 21 Oct 2022 06:17:14 -0700 (PDT) Received: from smtpclient.apple ([2409:4055:2e01:52dc:d090:a518:fa38:67b8]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id e30-20020a056a0000de00b00560c9048569sm15131533pfj.67.2022.10.21.06.17.11 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-ECDSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Fri, 21 Oct 2022 06:17:13 -0700 (PDT) From: S kang Message-Id: Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail=_566463B4-ACA2-4892-B4DF-9B01E2D5969F" Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 16.0 \(3696.100.31\)) Date: Fri, 21 Oct 2022 06:17:07 -0700 In-Reply-To: <1f575fa24af142126507eebdf0e6b2e8@yancy.lol> To: email@yancy.lol, Bitcoin Protocol Discussion References: <1f575fa24af142126507eebdf0e6b2e8@yancy.lol> X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3696.100.31) X-Mailman-Approved-At: Fri, 21 Oct 2022 14:03:39 +0000 Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Does Bitcoin require or have an honest majority or a rational one? (re rbf) X-BeenThere: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: Bitcoin Protocol Discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 21 Oct 2022 13:17:17 -0000 --Apple-Mail=_566463B4-ACA2-4892-B4DF-9B01E2D5969F Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Hello respected parties of the bitcoin network, The point, as put forward by Jeremy is, economic rationality sometimes = leads to breaking the =E2=80=99social contract=E2=80=99 set earlier in = history. Beyond its implications to RBF discussion, following economic = rationality, rather than trying to uphold the social contract(honesty), = may lead to hijacking of the network. Few examples: Development/Mining = might follow the economic rational path of supporting whatever the = blockchains winning in the market are doing (supporting smart contracts, = or becoming a privacy chain, etc.) even at the price of giving up peer = to peer payment system (the meme infinity/21m maybe the opposite of = issuing multiple coins). A centralized third party may acquire the = market sentiment to motivate this direction or influence miners/bitcoin = dev to follow their roadmap, which seems beneficial to individuals until = the extreme case where the core use-case is needed to secure themselves. The main issue it seems is consensus(pow-based-vote or market sentiment = driven improvements) cannot be vetoed by an individual(minority is not = quite the right term, since it is opposite of majority, vs consensus). = They can only exit at that point(, as the 'ship sails'). My point is =E2=80=98purity=E2=80=99 about Satoshi's vision(a cringe = term at this point, but it means nothing more than the original = =E2=80=99social contract=E2=80=99 here) should be aspired to (while not = considering Satoshi's word as given truth, as pointed out by the bugs) & = all =E2=80=98improvements=E2=80=99 must NOT be entertained. On the other = hand, as pointed out by Peter & Yancy, it may be practically impossible = to do anything better than economic rationality. (A corollary, is that = attacks described might have already happened and thus current audience = might be =E2=80=98unable to grok=E2=80=99 as explained by Jeremy.) Thanks for your time, mindshare & bearing my lack of academic quality. - S Kang > On Oct 21, 2022, at 1:47 AM, yancy via bitcoin-dev = wrote: >=20 >> ...and the easiest way to avoid Bitcoin being a system that doesn't = arbitrarily >> change rules, is to rely on economically rational rules that aren't = likely to >> change! > =20 > Yes, I think many people on this thread have been making the same = point. This is the basis of the Nash Equilibrium, from what I remember. > =20 >> This, Satoshi (who doesn't really matter anyways I guess?) >=20 > =20 > It doesn't seem to me Satoshi was classically trained in CS else maybe = he/she/they might have referenced the Nash Equilibrium. Looking at some = of the other references, including a statistics book titled "An = Introduction to Probability Theory and its Applications" from 1957 makes = me think this Satoshi person was closer in training and practice to a = mathematician. > =20 > Cheers, > -Yancy > =20 > On 2022-10-21 02:26, Peter Todd via bitcoin-dev wrote: >>=20 >> On Thu, Oct 20, 2022 at 04:54:00PM -0700, Jeremy Rubin wrote: >>>=20 >>> The difference between honest majority and longest chain is that the >>> longest chain bug was something acknowledged by Satoshi & patched >>> = https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/commit/40cd0369419323f8d7385950e20342e9= 98c994e1#diff-623e3fd6da1a45222eeec71496747b31R420 = >>> . >>>=20 >>>=20 >>> OTOH, we have more explicit references that the honest majority = really >>> should be thought of as good guys vs bad guys... e.g. >>=20 >> The point is Satoshi got a lot of very fundamental stuff wrong. = Bringing up >> what Satoshi wrote now, almost 14 years later, misleads = less-technical readers >> into thinking our understanding of Bitcoin is still based on that = early, >> incorrect, understanding. >>=20 >> Incidentally, you realize that it was _Satoshi_ who added RBF to = Bitcoin with >> nSequence replacements. My contribution was to fix that obviously = broken design >> with fee-based RBF (with nSequence a transaction could be replaced up = to 4 >> billion times, using essentially unlimited P2P bandwidth; it was a = terrible >> idea). >>=20 >>> I do think the case can be fairly made for full RBF, but if you = don't grok >>> the above maybe you won't have as much empathy for people who built = a >>> business around particular aspects of the Bitcoin network that they = feel >>> are now being changed. They have every right to be mad about that = and make >>> disagreements known and argue for why we should preserve these = properties. >>=20 >> Those people run mild sybil attacks on the network in their efforts = to >> "mitigate risk" by monitoring propagation; fundamentally doing so is >> centralizing and unfair, as only a small number of companies can do = that >> without DoS attacking the P2P network. It's pretty obvious that = reliance to >> zeroconf is harmful to Bitcoin, and people trying to do that have = repeatedly >> taken big losses when their risk mitigations turned out to not work. = Their only >> right to be mad comes from the 1st Ammendment. >>=20 >>> As someone who wants for Bitcoin to be a system which doesn't = arbitrarily >>> change rules based on the whims of others, I think it important that = we can >>> steelman and provide strong cases for why our actions might be in = the >>> wrong, so that we make sure our justifications are not only = well-justified, >>> but that we can communicate them clearly to all participants in a = global >>> value network. >>=20 >> ...and the easiest way to avoid Bitcoin being a system that doesn't = arbitrarily >> change rules, is to rely on economically rational rules that aren't = likely to >> change! >>=20 >> _______________________________________________ >> bitcoin-dev mailing list >> bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org = >> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev = __________= _____________________________________ > bitcoin-dev mailing list > bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org = > https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev = --Apple-Mail=_566463B4-ACA2-4892-B4DF-9B01E2D5969F Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/html; charset=utf-8
Hello respected parties of the bitcoin network,

The point, as put forward by Jeremy is, = economic rationality sometimes leads to breaking the =E2=80=99social = contract=E2=80=99 set earlier in history.

Beyond its implications to RBF = discussion, following economic rationality, rather than trying to uphold = the social contract(honesty), may lead to hijacking of the network. Few = examples: Development/Mining might follow the economic rational path of = supporting whatever the blockchains winning in the market are doing = (supporting smart contracts, or becoming a privacy chain, etc.) even at = the price of giving up peer to peer payment system (the meme = infinity/21m maybe the opposite of issuing multiple coins). A = centralized third party may acquire the market sentiment to motivate = this direction or influence miners/bitcoin dev to follow their roadmap, = which seems beneficial to individuals until the extreme case where the = core use-case is needed to secure themselves.

The main issue it seems is = consensus(pow-based-vote or market sentiment driven improvements) cannot = be vetoed by an individual(minority is not quite the right term, since = it is opposite of majority, vs consensus). They can only exit at that = point(, as the 'ship sails').

My point is =E2=80=98purity=E2=80=99 = about Satoshi's vision(a cringe term at this point, but it means nothing = more than the original =E2=80=99social contract=E2=80=99 here) should be = aspired to (while not considering Satoshi's word as given truth, as = pointed out by the bugs) & all =E2=80=98improvements=E2=80=99 must = NOT be entertained. On the other hand, as pointed out by Peter & = Yancy, it may be practically impossible to do anything better than = economic rationality. (A corollary, is that attacks described might have = already happened and thus current audience might be =E2=80=98unable to = grok=E2=80=99 as explained by Jeremy.)

Thanks for your time, mindshare & bearing = my lack of academic quality.

- S Kang


On Oct 21, 2022, at 1:47 AM, yancy via bitcoin-dev <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:

...and the easiest way to avoid Bitcoin being a system that = doesn't arbitrarily
change rules, is to rely on = economically rational rules that aren't likely to
change!
 
Yes, I think many people on this = thread have been making the same point.  This is the basis of the = Nash Equilibrium, from what I remember.
 
This, Satoshi (who doesn't really matter anyways = I guess?)
 
It doesn't seem to me Satoshi was classically trained in CS = else maybe he/she/they might have referenced the Nash Equilibrium.  = Looking at some of the other references, including a statistics book = titled "An Introduction to Probability Theory and its Applications" = from 1957 makes = me think this Satoshi person was closer in training and practice to a = mathematician.
 
Cheers,
-Yancy
 
On 2022-10-21 02:26, Peter Todd via bitcoin-dev = wrote:
On Thu, Oct 20, 2022 at = 04:54:00PM -0700, Jeremy Rubin wrote:
The = difference between honest majority and longest chain is that the
longest chain bug was something acknowledged by Satoshi & = patched
https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/commit/40cd0369419323f8d7385= 950e20342e998c994e1#diff-623e3fd6da1a45222eeec71496747b31R420
.


OTOH, we have = more explicit references that the honest majority really
should be thought of as good guys vs bad guys... = e.g.

The point is Satoshi got a lot of very = fundamental stuff wrong. Bringing up
what Satoshi wrote = now, almost 14 years later, misleads less-technical readers
into thinking our understanding of Bitcoin is still based on = that early,
incorrect, understanding.

Incidentally, you realize that it was _Satoshi_ who added RBF = to Bitcoin with
nSequence replacements. My contribution = was to fix that obviously broken design
with fee-based RBF = (with nSequence a transaction could be replaced up to 4
billion times, using essentially unlimited P2P bandwidth; it = was a terrible
idea).

I do think the case can be = fairly made for full RBF, but if you don't grok
the above = maybe you won't have as much empathy for people who built a
business around particular aspects of the Bitcoin network = that they feel
are now being changed. They have every = right to be mad about that and make
disagreements known = and argue for why we should preserve these properties.

Those people run mild sybil attacks on the network in their = efforts to
"mitigate risk" by monitoring propagation; = fundamentally doing so is
centralizing and unfair, as only = a small number of companies can do that
without DoS = attacking the P2P network. It's pretty obvious that reliance to
zeroconf is harmful to Bitcoin, and people trying to do that = have repeatedly
taken big losses when their risk = mitigations turned out to not work. Their only
right to be = mad comes from the 1st Ammendment.

As someone who wants for = Bitcoin to be a system which doesn't arbitrarily
change = rules based on the whims of others, I think it important that we can
steelman and provide strong cases for why our actions might = be in the
wrong, so that we make sure our justifications = are not only well-justified,
but that we can communicate = them clearly to all participants in a global
value = network.

...and the easiest way to avoid = Bitcoin being a system that doesn't arbitrarily
change = rules, is to rely on economically rational rules that aren't likely = to
change!

_______________________________________________
bitcoin-dev mailing list
bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev<= /a>
_______________________________________________
bitcoin-dev = mailing list
bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev<= /a>

= --Apple-Mail=_566463B4-ACA2-4892-B4DF-9B01E2D5969F--