From: Peter Todd <pete@petertodd•org>
To: Jeff Garzik <jgarzik@bitpay•com>
Cc: Bitcoin-Dev <bitcoin-development@lists•sourceforge.net>
Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] Proposal: soft-fork to make anyone-can-spend outputs unspendable for 100 blocks
Date: Tue, 4 Jun 2013 16:25:18 -0400 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20130604202518.GA24069@petertodd.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAJHLa0PjAU-MWfUNRtK9zysQdLsCnNx3EiUjdbqQcCcco=g1=A@mail.gmail.com>
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1607 bytes --]
On Tue, Jun 04, 2013 at 02:49:54PM -0400, Jeff Garzik wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 4, 2013 at 2:36 PM, Roy Badami <roy@gnomon•org.uk> wrote:
> >> Sure they are paying themselves, but given bitcoin network
> >> difficulty is uso high, simply obtaining payments-go-myself-as-miner
> >> transactions is itself difficult.
> >
> > Not for pool operators it isn't. Nor for people buying hashing power
> > from a GPUMAX-type service, if such services still exist (or should
> > they exist again in future).
>
> Re-read what I wrote. That's perfectly OK. It is analogous to a pool
> operator receiving merged mined coins, each time they mine a bitcoin
> block.
>
> If you achieve the very high difficulty needed to create a valid
> bitcoin block, you have achieved a very high bar.
"High" is relative.
I could make a 100BTC apparently sacrifice via fees by just waiting a
month or two for my mining hardware to find a block that had a
pre-prepared fake sacrifice. It'd cost me roughly 1BTC when you take
orphans into account. Similarly I could hack into a pool and have them
do it on my behalf, or a pool could just offer the service for a fee.
I already worry enough that announce-commit sacrifices to mining fees
aren't secure enough given the potential of a few large pools teaming
up to create them cheaply, let alone what you're talking about...
Hey Luke: so what's the going rate to get Eligius to mine a fake mining
fee sacrifice? Can I get a discount on repeat orders? :)
--
'peter'[:-1]@petertodd.org
000000000000014c5bfacfca559fd6a9519dcd338f9fca6590eda7d156120013
[-- Attachment #2: Digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 198 bytes --]
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2013-06-04 20:25 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 22+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2013-06-01 19:30 Peter Todd
[not found] ` <201306012034.31543.luke@dashjr.org>
2013-06-01 20:58 ` Peter Todd
[not found] ` <38A06794-B6B4-45F3-99C1-24B08434536D@gmail.com>
2013-06-02 6:13 ` Peter Todd
2013-06-02 17:35 ` Jeff Garzik
2013-06-02 18:41 ` Peter Todd
2013-06-04 0:22 ` Mark Friedenbach
2013-06-02 21:45 ` Adam Back
2013-06-04 14:12 ` Jeff Garzik
2013-06-04 14:55 ` John Dillon
2013-06-04 17:42 ` Jeff Garzik
2013-06-04 18:36 ` Roy Badami
2013-06-04 18:49 ` Jeff Garzik
2013-06-04 20:25 ` Peter Todd [this message]
2013-06-03 23:43 ` Melvin Carvalho
2013-06-04 2:26 ` Michael Hendricks
2013-06-06 19:14 Luke-Jr
2013-06-06 19:59 ` Andreas M. Antonopoulos
2013-06-06 20:07 ` Luke-Jr
2013-06-06 20:16 ` Andreas M. Antonopoulos
2013-06-06 21:48 ` Luke-Jr
2013-06-06 22:10 ` Melvin Carvalho
2013-06-06 20:25 ` Melvin Carvalho
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20130604202518.GA24069@petertodd.org \
--to=pete@petertodd$(echo .)org \
--cc=bitcoin-development@lists$(echo .)sourceforge.net \
--cc=jgarzik@bitpay$(echo .)com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox