public inbox for bitcoindev@googlegroups.com
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Natanael <natanael.l@gmail•com>
To: Tom Harding <tomh@thinlink•com>
Cc: bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation.org
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] BIP: Full Replace-by-Fee deployment schedule
Date: Tue, 30 Jun 2015 02:51:58 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <CAAt2M1_yiN8ouaTdiyx8n8CkaT=e-pdUqqtde-bC32enqLfHog@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <5591E10F.9000008@thinlink.com>

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2326 bytes --]

Den 30 jun 2015 02:21 skrev "Tom Harding" <tomh@thinlink•com>:
>
> On 6/28/2015 10:07 PM, Peter Todd wrote:
>>
>> Worryingly large payment providers have shown
>> willingness(4) to consider extreme measures such as entering into legal
>> contracts directly with large miners to ensure their transactions get
mined.
>> This is a significant centralization risk and it is not practical or even
>> possible for small miners to enter into these contracts, leading to a
situation
>> where moving your hashing power to a larger pool will result in higher
profits
>> from hashing power contracts; if these payment providers secure a
majority of
>> hashing power with these contracts inevitably there will be a temptation
to
>> kick non-compliant miners off the network entirely with a 51% attack.
>>
>
> Your incomprehensible meddling with successful usage patterns threatens
to have unintended consequences directly in opposition to your own stated
goal of decentralization.  And yet you persist.
>
> As we deliberately break things and turn the P2P network into a
completely unpredictable hodge-podge of relay policies, we should expect
many more participants to bypass the P2P network entirely.

What you are asking for is TSA style reactive security and unverifiable and
fundamentally untrustable security mechanisms, rejecting proactive security
on the grounds that it is inconvenient.

What you ask to see implemented will trivially fall to a sybil attack. It
isn't securable. It is running on the honor system exclusively. It will be
attacked, it will fail, losses will be had, the attackers will walk away
with embarrassingly large sums.

You want verifiable behavior? Incentives to tell the truth? Incentives to
be consistent? Multisignature notaries (Greenaddress.it), payment channel
based hub-and-spokes (LN,  Stroem), etc... Trusting the P2P network is
futile. You need one accountable party that is actually capable of
enforcing the behavior you ask for, one that can build a reputation over
time - the P2P nodes you wish to hold accountable are on the other hand
powerless to stop an actual attack, their reputations are therefore
meaningless and irrelevant. Multisignature notaries aren't, as they can
stop an attack, and they can be sued for breach of contract if they don't -
neither of those applies to P2P nodes.

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 2642 bytes --]

  reply	other threads:[~2015-06-30  0:52 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 20+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2015-06-29  5:07 Peter Todd
2015-06-29  5:40 ` Luke Dashjr
2015-06-29  5:43   ` Gregory Maxwell
2015-06-29  5:51     ` Luke Dashjr
2015-06-29  5:56       ` Peter Todd
2015-06-29  5:53     ` Peter Todd
2015-06-29  6:00       ` Luke Dashjr
2015-06-29  6:16 ` sickpig
2015-06-30  0:21 ` Tom Harding
2015-06-30  0:51   ` Natanael [this message]
2015-06-30  1:00     ` Tom Harding
2015-06-30  1:10       ` Natanael
2015-06-30  1:18         ` Tom Harding
2015-06-30  1:37   ` Peter Todd
2015-06-30 13:12     ` Adam Back
2015-06-30 13:49       ` Chris Pacia
2015-06-30 14:53         ` Peter Todd
2015-06-30 14:02       ` David A. Harding
2015-06-30 16:05       ` Peter Todd
2015-06-30 18:23         ` Chris Pacia

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='CAAt2M1_yiN8ouaTdiyx8n8CkaT=e-pdUqqtde-bC32enqLfHog@mail.gmail.com' \
    --to=natanael.l@gmail$(echo .)com \
    --cc=bitcoin-dev@lists$(echo .)linuxfoundation.org \
    --cc=tomh@thinlink$(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