From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from smtp1.osuosl.org (smtp1.osuosl.org [140.211.166.138]) by lists.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id EC6D4C002D for ; Thu, 20 Oct 2022 22:19:41 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by smtp1.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id BB4268431C for ; Thu, 20 Oct 2022 22:19:41 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 smtp1.osuosl.org BB4268431C Authentication-Results: smtp1.osuosl.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key, unprotected) header.d=messagingengine.com header.i=@messagingengine.com header.a=rsa-sha256 header.s=fm3 header.b=Rx0ipl5X X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at osuosl.org X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.602 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.602 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Received: from smtp1.osuosl.org ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (smtp1.osuosl.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Vrxm5xmrmzFy for ; Thu, 20 Oct 2022 22:19:40 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: domain auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.8.0 DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 smtp1.osuosl.org D0D968430F Received: from out5-smtp.messagingengine.com (out5-smtp.messagingengine.com [66.111.4.29]) by smtp1.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D0D968430F for ; Thu, 20 Oct 2022 22:19:40 +0000 (UTC) Received: from compute4.internal (compute4.nyi.internal [10.202.2.44]) by mailout.nyi.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id 04ED55C0036; Thu, 20 Oct 2022 18:19:40 -0400 (EDT) Received: from mailfrontend2 ([10.202.2.163]) by compute4.internal (MEProxy); Thu, 20 Oct 2022 18:19:40 -0400 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d= messagingengine.com; h=cc:cc:content-type:date:date:feedback-id :feedback-id:from:from:in-reply-to:in-reply-to:message-id :mime-version:references:reply-to:sender:subject:subject:to:to :x-me-proxy:x-me-proxy:x-me-sender:x-me-sender:x-sasl-enc; s= fm3; t=1666304380; x=1666390780; bh=3Bel2ZjWj51EvLOsXNRITudPYmrT HteNpO2LHJvldDU=; b=Rx0ipl5XL2YqGkJRBfV61FelWNrcztGKQ/VLxri6cpUF 2B0sSC75tnhKGAc//rsThZcI0tsGnGNNG1qClIpyCrzv+VjcuywUYZuwMDUK/Rpy MgOwstUV/u+qREp7gZF6bIdAV+iaBflwG57h4c5NN8SucDPMhCU0EROiVj+KoyyJ Ptq9wxO33WXlMF26D8NWDBI+SHfQfH5QsXEPFTB/HYpwBeOt02PtYmzxLvLHZwX2 dBsxkVW3i9OZob1THvm9FxD1sVS11elUoK7qpdniSu8ZsD2s5soX9f0KWhCRIYqc 4RtghQP8GxvSpOqOaZ2URq12ot+al5EdOkogmrgCKQ== X-ME-Sender: X-ME-Received: X-ME-Proxy-Cause: gggruggvucftvghtrhhoucdtuddrgedvfedrfeeljedgtdelucetufdoteggodetrfdotf fvucfrrhhofhhilhgvmecuhfgrshhtofgrihhlpdfqfgfvpdfurfetoffkrfgpnffqhgen uceurghilhhouhhtmecufedttdenucesvcftvggtihhpihgvnhhtshculddquddttddmne cujfgurhepfffhvfevuffkfhggtggujgesghdtreertddtvdenucfhrhhomheprfgvthgv rhcuvfhougguuceophgvthgvsehpvghtvghrthhouggurdhorhhgqeenucggtffrrghtth gvrhhnpeelvdellefftddukeduffejgfefjeeuheeileeftdfgteduteeggeevueethfej tdenucffohhmrghinhepphgvthgvrhhtohguugdrohhrghenucevlhhushhtvghrufhiii gvpedtnecurfgrrhgrmhepmhgrihhlfhhrohhmpehushgvrhesphgvthgvrhhtohguugdr ohhrgh X-ME-Proxy: Feedback-ID: i525146e8:Fastmail Received: by mail.messagingengine.com (Postfix) with ESMTPA; Thu, 20 Oct 2022 18:19:39 -0400 (EDT) Received: by localhost (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 36528204BA; Thu, 20 Oct 2022 18:19:38 -0400 (EDT) Date: Thu, 20 Oct 2022 18:19:38 -0400 From: Peter Todd To: Russell O'Connor , Bitcoin Protocol Discussion Message-ID: References: <903a46d95473714a7e11e33310fe9f56@yancy.lol> <2f4344b4c7952c3799f8766ae6b590bf@yancy.lol> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha512; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="raLw66OImeca2Bdl" Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: 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: Thu, 20 Oct 2022 22:19:42 -0000 --raLw66OImeca2Bdl Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Tue, Oct 18, 2022 at 10:30:26AM -0400, Russell O'Connor via bitcoin-dev = wrote: > It is most certainly the case that one can construct situations where not > mining on the tip is going to be the prefered strategy. But even if that > happens on occasion, it's not like the protocol immediately collapses, > because mining off the tip is indistinguishable from being a high latency > miner who simply didn't receive the most work block in time. So it is mo= re I don't believe that's a good argument. A sufficiently large high latency miner who doesn't receive the most work b= lock in time would cause huge disruptions to the network, potentially causing ot= her miners to be unprofitable. I even gave a talk on this a few years back, on = how if Bitcoin mining in space becomes profitable, it'll cause enormous problems due to the slow speed of light. > of a question of how rare does it need to be, and what can we do to reduce > the chances of such situations arising (e.g. updating our mining policy to > leave some transactions out based on current (and anticipated) mempool > conditions, or (for a sufficiently capitalized miner) leave an explicit, > ANYONECANSPEND transaction output as a tip for the next miner to build up= on > mined blocks.) =2E..at which point the large miners are likely to be significantly more profitable than small miners, because they can collect more fees. That's a disaster. --=20 https://petertodd.org 'peter'[:-1]@petertodd.org --raLw66OImeca2Bdl Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iQEzBAEBCgAdFiEEFcyURjhyM68BBPYTJIFAPaXwkfsFAmNRyXYACgkQJIFAPaXw kfv+agf7BIyNBzVK7KXMOzoM0II6pUJZvSjYUabc+ZTLXUpN+OeMEhiCCC36pzHY weKRIRbp4Th3uv/DtX/Efih7hJNBx+J5mdQjhjS2/PCM/WZUjud1NByIbj8QfM4N DRNwXAYln/shxWHUDV7jqv7tjzp/QYFmpdPu1LbKPU0rymnR8fr6ZBowivvbaxn8 vpgyMi8t9/rzJ07+ZR0cgnpcVjy7XXHYh3SFho7W2sQXBClX8PPoOiliZnDy6FHj d/zb/LIKCFrhROr5vDQ2FT34JzCBBoVPaH8bE8pocqNQkzl+fZXcTBpkSYbzNDzh i2aRGAq0r9J5BknRK1sw3pJrJ9JLsA== =dJxJ -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --raLw66OImeca2Bdl--