From: Peter Todd <pete@petertodd•org>
To: Gavin Andresen <gavinandresen@gmail•com>
Cc: Bitcoin Dev <bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation.org>
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Time to worry about 80-bit collision attacks or not?
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 2016 10:41:15 -0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20160108184115.GA8489@muck> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CABsx9T2CM2iVBbzBs-jQA6S-sHCdtEEWNwn=DgN_D+biKVErkA@mail.gmail.com>
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1303 bytes --]
On Thu, Jan 07, 2016 at 08:54:00PM -0500, Gavin Andresen via bitcoin-dev wrote:
> ---
>
> I'm really disappointed with the "Here's the spec, take it or leave it"
> attitude. What's the point of having a BIP process if the discussion just
> comes down to "We think more is better. We don't care what you think."
I'll point out that I personally raised an issue with segpregated
witnesses quite recently - my concern that it could make validationless
mining easier and more profitable(1). Neither Pieter Wuille nor Gregory
Maxwell believed my concern to be important at first in private
communication. However, it was still discussed on IRC, with Pieter,
Greg, and others contributing valuable input on the problem and my
proposed fix. Right now I think the next step for me is to write the
code to implement my fix and submit a pull-req against the segwit
branch.
I certainly wouldn't describe that experience as "Here's the spec, take
it or leave it; We don't what what you think."
1) "Segregated witnesses and validationless mining",
Peter Todd, Dec 23 2015, Bitcoin-dev mailing list,
http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2015-December/012103.html
--
'peter'[:-1]@petertodd.org
000000000000000004aea2cfdb89c4816b7a42208dca1f3cfd66a1c9b5df4506
[-- Attachment #2: Digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 650 bytes --]
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2016-01-08 18:41 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 34+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2016-01-07 19:02 Gavin Andresen
2016-01-07 19:13 ` Matt Corallo
2016-01-07 19:19 ` Adam Back
2016-01-07 20:56 ` Dave Scotese
2016-01-07 21:06 ` Gavin Andresen
2016-01-07 22:56 ` Ethan Heilman
2016-01-07 23:39 ` Gavin Andresen
2016-01-08 1:26 ` Matt Corallo
2016-01-08 1:54 ` Gavin Andresen
2016-01-08 17:38 ` Pieter Wuille
2016-01-08 18:41 ` Peter Todd [this message]
2016-01-07 20:40 ` Ethan Heilman
2016-01-07 23:52 ` Pieter Wuille
2016-01-08 1:00 ` Gavin Andresen
2016-01-08 1:27 ` Watson Ladd
2016-01-08 3:30 ` Rusty Russell
2016-01-08 3:41 ` Matt Corallo
2016-01-08 12:02 ` Rusty Russell
2016-01-08 12:38 ` Gavin Andresen
2016-01-08 14:34 ` Watson Ladd
2016-01-08 15:26 ` Adam Back
2016-01-08 15:33 ` Anthony Towns
2016-01-08 15:46 ` Gavin Andresen
2016-01-08 15:50 ` Gavin Andresen
2016-01-08 15:59 ` Gavin Andresen
2016-01-11 20:32 ` Jorge Timón
2016-01-08 16:06 ` Gavin Andresen
2016-01-11 3:57 ` Rusty Russell
2016-01-11 6:57 ` Peter Todd
2016-01-11 23:57 ` Tier Nolan
2016-01-12 0:00 ` Tier Nolan
2016-01-12 12:08 ` Gavin Andresen
2016-01-12 23:22 ` Zooko Wilcox-O'Hearn
2016-01-08 18:52 ` Peter Todd
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=20160108184115.GA8489@muck \
--to=pete@petertodd$(echo .)org \
--cc=bitcoin-dev@lists$(echo .)linuxfoundation.org \
--cc=gavinandresen@gmail$(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