* [bitcoin-dev] Is it possible for there to be two chains after a hard fork?
@ 2015-09-29 14:04 Gavin Andresen
2015-09-29 14:17 ` Jonathan Toomim (Toomim Bros)
2015-09-29 17:24 ` Allen Piscitello
0 siblings, 2 replies; 12+ messages in thread
From: Gavin Andresen @ 2015-09-29 14:04 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Jonathan Toomim (Toomim Bros); +Cc: Bitcoin Dev
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2289 bytes --]
I keep seeing statements like this:
On Tue, Sep 29, 2015 at 9:30 AM, Jonathan Toomim (Toomim Bros) via
bitcoin-dev <bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
> As a further benefit to hard forks, anybody who is ideologically opposed
> to the change can continue to use the old version successfully, as long as
> there are enough miners to keep the fork alive.
... but I can't see how that would work.
Lets say there is a hard fork, and 5% of miners stubbornly refuse to go
along with the 95% majority (for this thought experiment, it doesn't matter
if the old rules or new rules 'win').
Lets further imagine that some exchange decides to support that 5% and lets
people trade coins from that fork (one of the small altcoin exchanges would
definitely do this if they think they can make a profit).
Now, lets say I've got a lot of pre-fork bitcoin; they're valid on both
sides of the fork. I support the 95% chain (because I'm not insane), but
I'm happy to take people's money if they're stupid enough to give it to me.
So, I do the following:
1) Create a send-to-self transaction on the 95% fork that is ONLY valid on
the 95% fork (maybe I CoinJoin with a post-fork coinbase transaction, or
just move my coins into then out of an exchange's very active hot wallet so
I get coins with a long transaction history on the 95% side of the fork).
2) Transfer those same coins to the 5% exchange and sell them for whatever
price I can get (I don't care how low, it is free money to me-- I will
still own the coins on the 95% fork).
I have to do step (1) to prevent the exchange from taking the
transfer-to-exchange transaction and replaying it on the 95% chain.
I don't see any way of preventing EVERYBODY who has coins on the 95% side
of the fork from doing that. The result would be a huge free-fall in price
as I, and everybody else, rushes to get some free money from anybody
willing to pay us to remain idealogically pure.
Does anybody think something else would happen, and do you think that
ANYBODY would stick to the 5% fork in the face of enormously long
transaction confirmation times (~3 hours), a huge transaction backlog as
lots of the 95%'ers try to sell their coins before the price drops, and a
massive price drop for coins on the 5% fork.
--
--
Gavin Andresen
[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 3343 bytes --]
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 12+ messages in thread* Re: [bitcoin-dev] Is it possible for there to be two chains after a hard fork? 2015-09-29 14:04 [bitcoin-dev] Is it possible for there to be two chains after a hard fork? Gavin Andresen @ 2015-09-29 14:17 ` Jonathan Toomim (Toomim Bros) 2015-09-29 14:59 ` Mark Friedenbach 2015-09-29 17:24 ` Allen Piscitello 1 sibling, 1 reply; 12+ messages in thread From: Jonathan Toomim (Toomim Bros) @ 2015-09-29 14:17 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Gavin Andresen; +Cc: Bitcoin Dev [-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 3222 bytes --] At the 95% threshold, I don't think it would happen unless there was a very strong motivating factor, like a small group believing that CLTV was a conspiracy run by the NSA agent John Titor to contaminate our precious bodily fluids with time-traveling traveler's cheques. At the 75% threshold, I think it could happen with mostly rational users, but even then it's not very likely with most forks. With the blocksize issue, there are some people who get very religious about things like decentralization or fee markets and think that even 1 MB is too large; I could see them making financial sacrifices in order to try to make a small-block parallel fork a reality, one that is true to their vision of what's needed to make Bitcoin true and pure, or whatever. On Sep 29, 2015, at 7:04 AM, Gavin Andresen <gavinandresen@gmail•com> wrote: > I keep seeing statements like this: > > On Tue, Sep 29, 2015 at 9:30 AM, Jonathan Toomim (Toomim Bros) via bitcoin-dev <bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation.org> wrote: > As a further benefit to hard forks, anybody who is ideologically opposed to the change can continue to use the old version successfully, as long as there are enough miners to keep the fork alive. > > ... but I can't see how that would work. > > Lets say there is a hard fork, and 5% of miners stubbornly refuse to go along with the 95% majority (for this thought experiment, it doesn't matter if the old rules or new rules 'win'). > > Lets further imagine that some exchange decides to support that 5% and lets people trade coins from that fork (one of the small altcoin exchanges would definitely do this if they think they can make a profit). > > Now, lets say I've got a lot of pre-fork bitcoin; they're valid on both sides of the fork. I support the 95% chain (because I'm not insane), but I'm happy to take people's money if they're stupid enough to give it to me. > > So, I do the following: > > 1) Create a send-to-self transaction on the 95% fork that is ONLY valid on the 95% fork (maybe I CoinJoin with a post-fork coinbase transaction, or just move my coins into then out of an exchange's very active hot wallet so I get coins with a long transaction history on the 95% side of the fork). > > 2) Transfer those same coins to the 5% exchange and sell them for whatever price I can get (I don't care how low, it is free money to me-- I will still own the coins on the 95% fork). > > I have to do step (1) to prevent the exchange from taking the transfer-to-exchange transaction and replaying it on the 95% chain. > > I don't see any way of preventing EVERYBODY who has coins on the 95% side of the fork from doing that. The result would be a huge free-fall in price as I, and everybody else, rushes to get some free money from anybody willing to pay us to remain idealogically pure. > > Does anybody think something else would happen, and do you think that ANYBODY would stick to the 5% fork in the face of enormously long transaction confirmation times (~3 hours), a huge transaction backlog as lots of the 95%'ers try to sell their coins before the price drops, and a massive price drop for coins on the 5% fork. > > -- > -- > Gavin Andresen > [-- Attachment #1.2: Type: text/html, Size: 4595 bytes --] [-- Attachment #2: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail --] [-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 496 bytes --] ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 12+ messages in thread
* Re: [bitcoin-dev] Is it possible for there to be two chains after a hard fork? 2015-09-29 14:17 ` Jonathan Toomim (Toomim Bros) @ 2015-09-29 14:59 ` Mark Friedenbach 0 siblings, 0 replies; 12+ messages in thread From: Mark Friedenbach @ 2015-09-29 14:59 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Jonathan Toomim (Toomim Bros); +Cc: Bitcoin Dev [-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 3953 bytes --] You don't need to appeal to human psychology. At 75% threshold, it takes only 25.01% of the hashpower to report but not actually enforce the fork to cause the majority hashpower to remain on the old chain, but for upgraded clients to start rejecting the old chain. With 95% the same problem exists but with a threshold of 45.01%. BIP 66 showed this not to be a hypothetical concern. On Tue, Sep 29, 2015 at 7:17 AM, Jonathan Toomim (Toomim Bros) via bitcoin-dev <bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation.org> wrote: > At the 95% threshold, I don't think it would happen unless there was a > very strong motivating factor, like a small group believing that CLTV was a > conspiracy run by the NSA agent John Titor to contaminate our precious > bodily fluids with time-traveling traveler's cheques. > > At the 75% threshold, I think it could happen with mostly rational users, > but even then it's not very likely with most forks. With the blocksize > issue, there are some people who get very religious about things like > decentralization or fee markets and think that even 1 MB is too large; I > could see them making financial sacrifices in order to try to make a > small-block parallel fork a reality, one that is true to their vision of > what's needed to make Bitcoin true and pure, or whatever. > > > > > On Sep 29, 2015, at 7:04 AM, Gavin Andresen <gavinandresen@gmail•com> > wrote: > > I keep seeing statements like this: > > On Tue, Sep 29, 2015 at 9:30 AM, Jonathan Toomim (Toomim Bros) via > bitcoin-dev <bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation.org> wrote: > >> As a further benefit to hard forks, anybody who is ideologically opposed >> to the change can continue to use the old version successfully, as long as >> there are enough miners to keep the fork alive. > > > ... but I can't see how that would work. > > Lets say there is a hard fork, and 5% of miners stubbornly refuse to go > along with the 95% majority (for this thought experiment, it doesn't matter > if the old rules or new rules 'win'). > > Lets further imagine that some exchange decides to support that 5% and > lets people trade coins from that fork (one of the small altcoin exchanges > would definitely do this if they think they can make a profit). > > Now, lets say I've got a lot of pre-fork bitcoin; they're valid on both > sides of the fork. I support the 95% chain (because I'm not insane), but > I'm happy to take people's money if they're stupid enough to give it to me. > > So, I do the following: > > 1) Create a send-to-self transaction on the 95% fork that is ONLY valid on > the 95% fork (maybe I CoinJoin with a post-fork coinbase transaction, or > just move my coins into then out of an exchange's very active hot wallet so > I get coins with a long transaction history on the 95% side of the fork). > > 2) Transfer those same coins to the 5% exchange and sell them for > whatever price I can get (I don't care how low, it is free money to me-- I > will still own the coins on the 95% fork). > > I have to do step (1) to prevent the exchange from taking the > transfer-to-exchange transaction and replaying it on the 95% chain. > > I don't see any way of preventing EVERYBODY who has coins on the 95% side > of the fork from doing that. The result would be a huge free-fall in price > as I, and everybody else, rushes to get some free money from anybody > willing to pay us to remain idealogically pure. > > Does anybody think something else would happen, and do you think that > ANYBODY would stick to the 5% fork in the face of enormously long > transaction confirmation times (~3 hours), a huge transaction backlog as > lots of the 95%'ers try to sell their coins before the price drops, and a > massive price drop for coins on the 5% fork. > > -- > -- > Gavin Andresen > > > > _______________________________________________ > bitcoin-dev mailing list > bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation.org > https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev > > [-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 5664 bytes --] ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 12+ messages in thread
* Re: [bitcoin-dev] Is it possible for there to be two chains after a hard fork? 2015-09-29 14:04 [bitcoin-dev] Is it possible for there to be two chains after a hard fork? Gavin Andresen 2015-09-29 14:17 ` Jonathan Toomim (Toomim Bros) @ 2015-09-29 17:24 ` Allen Piscitello 2015-09-29 17:35 ` Gavin Andresen 1 sibling, 1 reply; 12+ messages in thread From: Allen Piscitello @ 2015-09-29 17:24 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Gavin Andresen; +Cc: Bitcoin Dev [-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2907 bytes --] You're entire argument seems to be based on this assumption. >I support the 95% chain (because I'm not insane) I fail to see how always following a majority of miners no matter what their actions somehow equates to insanity. On Tue, Sep 29, 2015 at 9:04 AM, Gavin Andresen via bitcoin-dev < bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation.org> wrote: > I keep seeing statements like this: > > On Tue, Sep 29, 2015 at 9:30 AM, Jonathan Toomim (Toomim Bros) via > bitcoin-dev <bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation.org> wrote: > >> As a further benefit to hard forks, anybody who is ideologically opposed >> to the change can continue to use the old version successfully, as long as >> there are enough miners to keep the fork alive. > > > ... but I can't see how that would work. > > Lets say there is a hard fork, and 5% of miners stubbornly refuse to go > along with the 95% majority (for this thought experiment, it doesn't matter > if the old rules or new rules 'win'). > > Lets further imagine that some exchange decides to support that 5% and > lets people trade coins from that fork (one of the small altcoin exchanges > would definitely do this if they think they can make a profit). > > Now, lets say I've got a lot of pre-fork bitcoin; they're valid on both > sides of the fork. I support the 95% chain (because I'm not insane), but > I'm happy to take people's money if they're stupid enough to give it to me. > > So, I do the following: > > 1) Create a send-to-self transaction on the 95% fork that is ONLY valid on > the 95% fork (maybe I CoinJoin with a post-fork coinbase transaction, or > just move my coins into then out of an exchange's very active hot wallet so > I get coins with a long transaction history on the 95% side of the fork). > > 2) Transfer those same coins to the 5% exchange and sell them for > whatever price I can get (I don't care how low, it is free money to me-- I > will still own the coins on the 95% fork). > > I have to do step (1) to prevent the exchange from taking the > transfer-to-exchange transaction and replaying it on the 95% chain. > > I don't see any way of preventing EVERYBODY who has coins on the 95% side > of the fork from doing that. The result would be a huge free-fall in price > as I, and everybody else, rushes to get some free money from anybody > willing to pay us to remain idealogically pure. > > Does anybody think something else would happen, and do you think that > ANYBODY would stick to the 5% fork in the face of enormously long > transaction confirmation times (~3 hours), a huge transaction backlog as > lots of the 95%'ers try to sell their coins before the price drops, and a > massive price drop for coins on the 5% fork. > > -- > -- > Gavin Andresen > > > _______________________________________________ > bitcoin-dev mailing list > bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation.org > https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev > > [-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 4698 bytes --] ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 12+ messages in thread
* Re: [bitcoin-dev] Is it possible for there to be two chains after a hard fork? 2015-09-29 17:24 ` Allen Piscitello @ 2015-09-29 17:35 ` Gavin Andresen 2015-09-29 17:43 ` Allen Piscitello 0 siblings, 1 reply; 12+ messages in thread From: Gavin Andresen @ 2015-09-29 17:35 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Allen Piscitello; +Cc: Bitcoin Dev [-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1030 bytes --] On Tue, Sep 29, 2015 at 1:24 PM, Allen Piscitello < allen.piscitello@gmail•com> wrote: > I fail to see how always following a majority of miners no matter what > their actions somehow equates to insanity. Ok, I have a hidden assumption: I assume most miners are also not completely insane. I have met a fair number of them, and while they are often a little bit crazy (all entrepreneurs are a little bit crazy), I am confident that the vast majority of them are economically rational, and most of them are also meta-rational: they want Bitcoin to succeed. We've seen them demonstrate that meta-rationality when we've had accidental consensus forks. If you start with the premise that more than half of Bitcoin miners would do something crazy that would either destroy Bitcoin or would be completely unacceptable to you, personally... then maybe you should look for some other system that you might trust more, because Bitcoin's basic security assumption is that a supermajority of miners are 'honest.' -- -- Gavin Andresen [-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 1598 bytes --] ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 12+ messages in thread
* Re: [bitcoin-dev] Is it possible for there to be two chains after a hard fork? 2015-09-29 17:35 ` Gavin Andresen @ 2015-09-29 17:43 ` Allen Piscitello 2015-09-29 17:51 ` Mike Hearn 0 siblings, 1 reply; 12+ messages in thread From: Allen Piscitello @ 2015-09-29 17:43 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Gavin Andresen; +Cc: Bitcoin Dev [-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2120 bytes --] >If you start with the premise that more than half of Bitcoin miners would do something crazy that would either destroy Bitcoin or would be completely unacceptable to you, personally... then maybe you should look for some other system that you might trust more, because Bitcoin's basic security assumption is that a supermajority of miners are 'honest.' Miners not being crazy does not mean they are infallible. They may misjudge the market and change their minds about what is the most reasonable action based on new information. Their commitment to one fork or another is very dynamic, and is a huge assumption missing. They may overestimate their influence, support of the economy. Other factors may come into play that no one thought of, and they can revert back at any point. Labeling things as insane or crazy is not productive. >because Bitcoin's basic security assumption is that a supermajority of miners are 'honest.' Only if you rely on SPV. On Tue, Sep 29, 2015 at 12:35 PM, Gavin Andresen <gavinandresen@gmail•com> wrote: > On Tue, Sep 29, 2015 at 1:24 PM, Allen Piscitello < > allen.piscitello@gmail•com> wrote: > >> I fail to see how always following a majority of miners no matter what >> their actions somehow equates to insanity. > > > Ok, I have a hidden assumption: I assume most miners are also not > completely insane. > > I have met a fair number of them, and while they are often a little bit > crazy (all entrepreneurs are a little bit crazy), I am confident that the > vast majority of them are economically rational, and most of them are also > meta-rational: they want Bitcoin to succeed. We've seen them demonstrate > that meta-rationality when we've had accidental consensus forks. > > If you start with the premise that more than half of Bitcoin miners would > do something crazy that would either destroy Bitcoin or would be completely > unacceptable to you, personally... then maybe you should look for some > other system that you might trust more, because Bitcoin's basic security > assumption is that a supermajority of miners are 'honest.' > > -- > -- > Gavin Andresen > > [-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 3483 bytes --] ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 12+ messages in thread
* Re: [bitcoin-dev] Is it possible for there to be two chains after a hard fork? 2015-09-29 17:43 ` Allen Piscitello @ 2015-09-29 17:51 ` Mike Hearn 2015-09-29 17:55 ` Allen Piscitello 0 siblings, 1 reply; 12+ messages in thread From: Mike Hearn @ 2015-09-29 17:51 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Allen Piscitello; +Cc: Bitcoin Dev [-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 376 bytes --] > > >because Bitcoin's basic security assumption is that a supermajority of > miners are 'honest.' > > Only if you rely on SPV. > No, you rely on miners honesty even if you run a full node. This is in the white paper. A dishonest miner majority can commit fraud against you, they can mine only empty blocks, they can do various other things that render your money worthless. [-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 833 bytes --] ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 12+ messages in thread
* Re: [bitcoin-dev] Is it possible for there to be two chains after a hard fork? 2015-09-29 17:51 ` Mike Hearn @ 2015-09-29 17:55 ` Allen Piscitello 2015-09-29 18:01 ` Gavin Andresen 2015-09-29 18:02 ` Mike Hearn 0 siblings, 2 replies; 12+ messages in thread From: Allen Piscitello @ 2015-09-29 17:55 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Mike Hearn; +Cc: Bitcoin Dev [-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 896 bytes --] >A dishonest miner majority can commit fraud against you, they can mine only empty blocks, they can do various other things that render your money worthless. Mining empty blocks is not fraud. If you want to use terms like "honest miners" and "fraud", please define them so we can at least be on the same page. I am defining an honest miner as one that follows the rules of the protocol. Obviously your definition is different. On Tue, Sep 29, 2015 at 12:51 PM, Mike Hearn <hearn@vinumeris•com> wrote: > >because Bitcoin's basic security assumption is that a supermajority of >> miners are 'honest.' >> >> Only if you rely on SPV. >> > > No, you rely on miners honesty even if you run a full node. This is in the > white paper. A dishonest miner majority can commit fraud against you, they > can mine only empty blocks, they can do various other things that render > your money worthless. > [-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 2009 bytes --] ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 12+ messages in thread
* Re: [bitcoin-dev] Is it possible for there to be two chains after a hard fork? 2015-09-29 17:55 ` Allen Piscitello @ 2015-09-29 18:01 ` Gavin Andresen 2015-09-29 18:23 ` Allen Piscitello 2015-09-29 18:02 ` Mike Hearn 1 sibling, 1 reply; 12+ messages in thread From: Gavin Andresen @ 2015-09-29 18:01 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Allen Piscitello; +Cc: Bitcoin Dev [-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1657 bytes --] We really shouldn't have to go over "Bitcoin 101" on this mailing list, and this discussion should move to the not-yet-created more general discussion list. I started this thread as a sanity check on myself, because I keep seeing smart people saying that two chains could persist for more than a few days after a hard fork, and I still don't see how that would possibly work. So: "fraud" would be 51% miners sending you bitcoin in exchange for something of value, you wait for confirmations and send them that something of value, and then the 51% reverses the transaction. Running a full node doesn't help. On Tue, Sep 29, 2015 at 1:55 PM, Allen Piscitello < allen.piscitello@gmail•com> wrote: > >A dishonest miner majority can commit fraud against you, they can mine > only empty blocks, they can do various other things that render your money > worthless. > > Mining empty blocks is not fraud. > > If you want to use terms like "honest miners" and "fraud", please define > them so we can at least be on the same page. > > I am defining an honest miner as one that follows the rules of the > protocol. Obviously your definition is different. > > On Tue, Sep 29, 2015 at 12:51 PM, Mike Hearn <hearn@vinumeris•com> wrote: > >> >because Bitcoin's basic security assumption is that a supermajority of >>> miners are 'honest.' >>> >>> Only if you rely on SPV. >>> >> >> No, you rely on miners honesty even if you run a full node. This is in >> the white paper. A dishonest miner majority can commit fraud against you, >> they can mine only empty blocks, they can do various other things that >> render your money worthless. >> > > -- -- Gavin Andresen [-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 3260 bytes --] ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 12+ messages in thread
* Re: [bitcoin-dev] Is it possible for there to be two chains after a hard fork? 2015-09-29 18:01 ` Gavin Andresen @ 2015-09-29 18:23 ` Allen Piscitello 2015-09-30 16:14 ` Jorge Timón 0 siblings, 1 reply; 12+ messages in thread From: Allen Piscitello @ 2015-09-29 18:23 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Gavin Andresen; +Cc: Bitcoin Dev [-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2156 bytes --] >I started this thread as a sanity check on myself, because I keep seeing smart people saying that two chains could persist for more than a few days after a hard fork, and I still don't see how that would possibly work. When you start with the assumption that anyone who disagrees with you is insane or crazy, I can see why you have such difficulty. On Tue, Sep 29, 2015 at 1:01 PM, Gavin Andresen <gavinandresen@gmail•com> wrote: > We really shouldn't have to go over "Bitcoin 101" on this mailing list, > and this discussion should move to the not-yet-created more general > discussion list. I started this thread as a sanity check on myself, > because I keep seeing smart people saying that two chains could persist for > more than a few days after a hard fork, and I still don't see how that > would possibly work. > > So: "fraud" would be 51% miners sending you bitcoin in exchange for > something of value, you wait for confirmations and send them that something > of value, and then the 51% reverses the transaction. > > Running a full node doesn't help. > > On Tue, Sep 29, 2015 at 1:55 PM, Allen Piscitello < > allen.piscitello@gmail•com> wrote: > >> >A dishonest miner majority can commit fraud against you, they can mine >> only empty blocks, they can do various other things that render your money >> worthless. >> >> Mining empty blocks is not fraud. >> >> If you want to use terms like "honest miners" and "fraud", please define >> them so we can at least be on the same page. >> >> I am defining an honest miner as one that follows the rules of the >> protocol. Obviously your definition is different. >> >> On Tue, Sep 29, 2015 at 12:51 PM, Mike Hearn <hearn@vinumeris•com> wrote: >> >>> >because Bitcoin's basic security assumption is that a supermajority of >>>> miners are 'honest.' >>>> >>>> Only if you rely on SPV. >>>> >>> >>> No, you rely on miners honesty even if you run a full node. This is in >>> the white paper. A dishonest miner majority can commit fraud against you, >>> they can mine only empty blocks, they can do various other things that >>> render your money worthless. >>> >> >> > > > -- > -- > Gavin Andresen > [-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 4232 bytes --] ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 12+ messages in thread
* Re: [bitcoin-dev] Is it possible for there to be two chains after a hard fork? 2015-09-29 18:23 ` Allen Piscitello @ 2015-09-30 16:14 ` Jorge Timón 0 siblings, 0 replies; 12+ messages in thread From: Jorge Timón @ 2015-09-30 16:14 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Allen Piscitello; +Cc: Bitcoin Dev Gavin, you assume that users must necessarily always follow the hashrate majority, but this is not true. In fact, it is the opposite: market forces make the hashrate follow the users. Not following the hashrate majority is not necessarily insane. If some users aren't happy with the new hardfork rules, they may never upgrade. This is discussed (although I want to improve the text) under the "Schism hardforks" section of BIP99 (which you may have some complaints against, so please review https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/pull/181/files#diff-e331b8631759a4ed6a4cfb4d10f473caR135 ). It is true that users of chain A may sell or their B-coins, but the opposite is also true: users in chain B may sell all their A-coins. Speculators will likely sell both and probably not buy again until the initial uncertainty is gone (or they may never buy again, nobody can predict this). Let's use an example. Let's assume that a hardfork is rolled out to completely remove the blocksize limit (I believe you would be against that from previous conversations with you). As long as there are users creating demand for the old-coins, there will be miners mining the old coins. This is not insane for neither users or miners no matter how big the majority of users and/or miners in the new rules chain. Again, probably the best place to discuss this kind of thing is https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/pull/181 or the bitcoin-dev thread linked from the BIP ( http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2015-June/008936.html ). On Tue, Sep 29, 2015 at 8:23 PM, Allen Piscitello via bitcoin-dev <bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation.org> wrote: >>I started this thread as a sanity check on myself, because I keep seeing >> smart people saying that two chains could persist for more than a few days >> after a hard fork, and I still don't see how that would possibly work. > > When you start with the assumption that anyone who disagrees with you is > insane or crazy, I can see why you have such difficulty. > > > On Tue, Sep 29, 2015 at 1:01 PM, Gavin Andresen <gavinandresen@gmail•com> > wrote: >> >> We really shouldn't have to go over "Bitcoin 101" on this mailing list, >> and this discussion should move to the not-yet-created more general >> discussion list. I started this thread as a sanity check on myself, because >> I keep seeing smart people saying that two chains could persist for more >> than a few days after a hard fork, and I still don't see how that would >> possibly work. >> >> So: "fraud" would be 51% miners sending you bitcoin in exchange for >> something of value, you wait for confirmations and send them that something >> of value, and then the 51% reverses the transaction. >> >> Running a full node doesn't help. >> >> On Tue, Sep 29, 2015 at 1:55 PM, Allen Piscitello >> <allen.piscitello@gmail•com> wrote: >>> >>> >A dishonest miner majority can commit fraud against you, they can mine >>> > only empty blocks, they can do various other things that render your money >>> > worthless. >>> >>> Mining empty blocks is not fraud. >>> >>> If you want to use terms like "honest miners" and "fraud", please define >>> them so we can at least be on the same page. >>> >>> I am defining an honest miner as one that follows the rules of the >>> protocol. Obviously your definition is different. >>> >>> On Tue, Sep 29, 2015 at 12:51 PM, Mike Hearn <hearn@vinumeris•com> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >because Bitcoin's basic security assumption is that a supermajority of >>>>> > miners are 'honest.' >>>>> >>>>> Only if you rely on SPV. >>>> >>>> >>>> No, you rely on miners honesty even if you run a full node. This is in >>>> the white paper. A dishonest miner majority can commit fraud against you, >>>> they can mine only empty blocks, they can do various other things that >>>> render your money worthless. >>> >>> >> >> >> >> -- >> -- >> Gavin Andresen > > > > _______________________________________________ > bitcoin-dev mailing list > bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation.org > https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev > ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 12+ messages in thread
* Re: [bitcoin-dev] Is it possible for there to be two chains after a hard fork? 2015-09-29 17:55 ` Allen Piscitello 2015-09-29 18:01 ` Gavin Andresen @ 2015-09-29 18:02 ` Mike Hearn 1 sibling, 0 replies; 12+ messages in thread From: Mike Hearn @ 2015-09-29 18:02 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Allen Piscitello; +Cc: Bitcoin Dev [-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 222 bytes --] > > Mining empty blocks is not fraud. > I didn't say it was, sorry, the comma was separating two list items. By "fraud" I meant double spending. Mining only empty blocks would be a DoS attack rather than double spending. [-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 523 bytes --] ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 12+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2015-09-30 16:14 UTC | newest] Thread overview: 12+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed) -- links below jump to the message on this page -- 2015-09-29 14:04 [bitcoin-dev] Is it possible for there to be two chains after a hard fork? Gavin Andresen 2015-09-29 14:17 ` Jonathan Toomim (Toomim Bros) 2015-09-29 14:59 ` Mark Friedenbach 2015-09-29 17:24 ` Allen Piscitello 2015-09-29 17:35 ` Gavin Andresen 2015-09-29 17:43 ` Allen Piscitello 2015-09-29 17:51 ` Mike Hearn 2015-09-29 17:55 ` Allen Piscitello 2015-09-29 18:01 ` Gavin Andresen 2015-09-29 18:23 ` Allen Piscitello 2015-09-30 16:14 ` Jorge Timón 2015-09-29 18:02 ` Mike Hearn
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox