Re: [bitcoin-dev] Replay attacks make BIP148 and BIP149 untennable

From: Conner Fromknecht <conner@enigma•co>
To: Nick Johnson <nick@ethereum•org>, Tao Effect <contact@taoeffect•com>
Cc: Bitcoin Dev <bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation.org>
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Replay attacks make BIP148 and BIP149 untennable
Date: Thu, 08 Jun 2017 05:44:40 +0000	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <CACkD=vGQbO830Yi8ZqGnZKjttksgCO=S3M+r1w9c9VHZMEUovw@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAFz7pMvk5acuXRXPiMwo63A=RgdnhFXrMWmED3JLXXP5BPMf6g@mail.gmail.com>

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 3060 bytes --]

I don't normally post here, but I'm sorry, if you don't see those two as
equal, then I think you have misunderstood the *entire* value proposition
of cryptocurrencies.

The state of any cryptocurrency should entirely (and only) be defined by
its ledger. If the state of the system can be altered outside of the rules
governing its ledger, then the system isn't secure. It doesn't matter
whether the people making those changes are the ones that are leading the
project or not. An "irregular state change" is a fancy term for a bailout.

I'm sure I speak for more than myself in saying that an "irregular state
change" is equivalent to modifying the underlying ledger. Let's not let
semantics keep us from recognizing what actually took place.

-Conner

On Wed, Jun 7, 2017 at 14:14 Nick Johnson via bitcoin-dev <
bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation.org> wrote:

> On Wed, Jun 7, 2017 at 5:27 PM Tao Effect <contact@taoeffect•com> wrote:
>
>> Nick,
>>
>> Please don't spread misinformation. Whatever you think of the DAO hard
>> fork, it's a simple fact that the Ethereum ledger was not edited.
>>
>>
>> This sort of email is unhelpful to this conversation, and it certainly
>> doesn't help with the perception that Ethereum is nothing but a bunch of
>> hypocritical Bankers 2.0.
>>
>
>
>>
>> Everyone knows you didn't edit Ethereum Classic, but the the hard fork,
>> which was re-branded as Ethereum, was edited.
>>
>
> That's not what I was suggesting. My point is that the ledger was never
> edited. An 'irregular state change' was added at a specific block height,
> but the ledger remains inviolate.
>
> I'm sure I don't have to explain the difference between the ledger and the
> state to you, or why it's significant that the ledger wasn't (and can't be,
> practically) modified.
>
> -Nick
>
>
>> - Greg
>>
>> --
>> Please do not email me anything that you are not comfortable also sharing with
>> the NSA.
>>
>> On Jun 7, 2017, at 6:25 AM, Nick Johnson <nick@ethereum•org> wrote:
>>
>> On Wed, Jun 7, 2017 at 12:02 AM Gregory Maxwell via bitcoin-dev <
>> bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
>>
>>> On Tue, Jun 6, 2017 at 10:39 PM, Tao Effect via bitcoin-dev
>>> <bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
>>> > I believe the severity of replay attacks is going unvoiced and is not
>>> > understood within the bitcoin community because of their lack of
>>> experience
>>> > with them.
>>>
>>> Please don't insult our community-- the issues with replay were
>>> pointed out by us to Ethereum in advance and were cited specifically
>>> in prior hardfork discussions long before Ethereum started editing
>>> their ledger for the economic benefit of its centralized
>>> administrators.
>>
>>
>> Please don't spread misinformation. Whatever you think of the DAO hard
>> fork, it's a simple fact that the Ethereum ledger was not edited.
>>
>> -Nick Johnson
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
> bitcoin-dev mailing list
> bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation.org
> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
>

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 7234 bytes --]