From: Troy Benjegerdes <hozer@hozed•org>
To: "Jorge Timón" <jtimon@monetize•io>
Cc: bitcoin-development@lists•sourceforge.net
Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] Handling miner adoption gracefully for embedded consensus systems via double-spending/replace-by-fee
Date: Sun, 23 Mar 2014 18:17:37 -0500 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20140323231737.GM3180@nl.grid.coop> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAC1+kJNOuCpUPDiaBNR40T12W3MwUXpXp+PCTLhHyQwyc+8BqA@mail.gmail.com>
> > Right, but there's also a lot of the community who thinks
> > proof-of-publication applications are bad and should be discouraged. I
> > argued before that the way OP_RETURN was being deployed didn't actually
> > give any reason to use it vs. other data encoding methods.
> >
> > Unfortunately underlying all this is a real ignorance about how Bitcoin
> > actually works and what proof-of-publication actually is:
>
> I understand that proof of publication is not the same thing as
> regular timestamping, but requiring permanent storage in the
> blockchain is not the only way you can implement proof of publication.
> Mark Friedenbach proposes this:
>
> Store hashes, or a hash root, and soft-fork that blocks are only
> accepted if (a) the data tree is provided, or (b) sufficient work is
> built on it and/or sufficient time has passed
>
> This way full nodes can ignore the published data until is sufficiently buried.
>
> > I think we're just going to have to agree to disagree on our
> > interpretations of the economics with regard to attacking merge-mined
> > chains. Myself, I'm very, very wary of systems that have poor security
> > against economically irrational attackers regardless of how good the
> > security is, in theory, against economically rational ones.
>
> The attacker was of course economically irrational in my previous
> example for which you didn't have any complain. So I think we can
> agree that a merged mined separated chain is more secure than a
> non-merged mined separated chain and that attacking a merged mined
> chain is not free.
> By not being clear on this you're indirectly promoting non-merged
> mined altchains as a better option than merged mined altchains, which
> is what I don't think is responsible on your part.
>
I can't speak for Peter, but *I* am currently of the opinion that non-merged
mined altchains using memory-hard proof-of-work are a far better option than
sha-256 merged-mined altchains. This is not a popular position on this list,
and I would like to respectfully disagree, but still collaborate on all the
other things where bitcoin-core *is* the best-in-class code available.
A truly 'distributed' system must support multiple alchains, and multiple
proof-of-work hash algorithms, and probably support proof-of-stake as well.
If sha-256 is the only game in town the only advantage over the federal
reserve is I can at least audit the code that controls the money supply,
but it's not in any way distributed if the hash power is concentrated
among 5-10 major pools and 5-10 sha-256 asic vendors.
I find it very irresponsible for Bitcoiners to on one hand extol the virtues
of distributed systems and then in the same message claim any discussion
about alternate chains as 'off-topic'.
If bitcoin-core is for *distributed systems*, then all the different altcoins
with different hash algorithms should be viable topics for discussion.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Troy Benjegerdes 'da hozer' hozer@hozed•org
7 elements earth::water::air::fire::mind::spirit::soul grid.coop
Never pick a fight with someone who buys ink by the barrel,
nor try buy a hacker who makes money by the megahash
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2014-03-23 23:17 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 36+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2014-03-22 8:47 Peter Todd
2014-03-22 13:53 ` Jorge Timón
2014-03-22 19:34 ` Peter Todd
2014-03-22 20:12 ` Jorge Timón
2014-03-23 23:17 ` Troy Benjegerdes [this message]
2014-03-23 23:53 ` Mark Friedenbach
2014-03-24 20:34 ` Troy Benjegerdes
2014-03-24 20:57 ` Mark Friedenbach
2014-03-25 22:10 ` Troy Benjegerdes
2014-03-26 1:09 ` kjj
2014-03-22 15:08 ` Troy Benjegerdes
2014-03-22 17:04 ` Mark Friedenbach
2014-03-22 19:08 ` Peter Todd
2014-03-23 22:37 ` Troy Benjegerdes
[not found] ` <532DE7E6.4050304@monetize.io>
2014-03-25 12:28 ` [Bitcoin-development] Tree-chains preliminary summary Peter Todd
2014-03-25 12:45 ` Gavin Andresen
2014-03-25 13:49 ` Peter Todd
2014-03-25 15:20 ` Mike Hearn
2014-03-25 16:47 ` Peter Todd
2014-03-25 17:37 ` Jeff Garzik
2014-03-25 18:02 ` Alan Reiner
2014-03-25 18:13 ` slush
2014-03-25 19:47 ` Peter Todd
2014-03-25 21:41 ` Troy Benjegerdes
2014-03-25 20:40 ` Ricardo Filipe
2014-03-25 22:00 ` Troy Benjegerdes
2014-03-26 10:58 ` Peter Todd
2014-03-25 12:50 ` Peter Todd
2014-03-25 21:03 ` Mark Friedenbach
2014-03-25 22:34 ` Gregory Maxwell
2014-03-27 16:14 ` Jorge Timón
2014-03-28 15:10 ` Troy Benjegerdes
2014-04-17 21:41 ` Tier Nolan
2014-03-26 10:48 ` Peter Todd
2014-08-03 17:23 ` Gregory Sanders
2014-03-24 21:17 ` [Bitcoin-development] Handling miner adoption gracefully for embedded consensus systems via double-spending/replace-by-fee Luke-Jr
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=20140323231737.GM3180@nl.grid.coop \
--to=hozer@hozed$(echo .)org \
--cc=bitcoin-development@lists$(echo .)sourceforge.net \
--cc=jtimon@monetize$(echo .)io \
/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