Paul, There is a difference between replying to an email, and addressing the issues that were brought up in it.
I did read your reply, and I chose not to respond to it because it did not
address anything I said.
Here's an example:
> It would not be accurate to say that miners have "total" control. Miners
> do control the destination of withdrawals, but they do not control the
> withdrawal-duration nor the withdrawal-frequency.
>
> So, if miners wish to 'steal' from a sidechain, they _can_ initiate a
> theft, but they can not change the fact that their malfeasance will be
> [a] obvious, and [b] on display for a long period of time.
Here, you admit that the security of the sidechains allows miners to steal
bitcoins, something they cannot do currently.
You next tried to equate three different types of theft, what you called
"Classic Theft", "Channel Theft", and "Drivechain Theft", saying:
> I do not think that any of the three stands out as being categorically
> worse than the others
To anyone who understands bitcoin, there is a very clear, unmistakeable
difference between double-spending ("Classic Theft"), and *ownership* of the
private key controlling the bitcoins.
Similarly, to anyone who understands bitcoin, there is also a very clear,
unmistakeable difference between censorship ("Channel Theft"), and *ownership*
of the private key controlling the bitcoins.
The entire email was a very long-form way of admitting to all of the issues
that were raised in the previous email, while making it sound like you had
addressed the issues.
I am not sure how else to respond to that email, given that none of the issues
were really addressed.
Drivechain is an unmistakeable weakening of Bitcoin's security guarantees. This
you have not denied.
There is no reason to weaken Bitcoin's security in such a dramatic fashion.
Better options are being worked on, they just take time.
Kind regards,
Greg Slepak
--
Please do not email me anything that you are not comfortable also sharing with
the NSA.
> On Jul 11, 2017, at 3:57 PM, Paul Sztorc <truthc...@gmail.com
> <mailto:truthc...@gmail.com>> wrote:
>
> On 7/11/2017 6:41 PM, Tao Effect wrote:
>> Dear Paul,
>>
>> Drivechain has several issues that you've acknowledged but have not,
>> IMO, adequately (at all really) addressed [1].
>
> I replied to your email at length, at [2]. You should read that email,
> and then reply to it with your outstanding objections, if you still have
> them (per the usual customs of a mailing list).
>
> [2]
> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2017-June/014609.html
> <https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2017-June/014609.html>
>
>> Adopting DC would be an irreversible course of action,
>
> This is false -- it is easily reversible with a second soft fork.
>
> Also, I would say to everyone that, (in my opinion as the OP) this
> conversation will go off-topic if it veers exclusively into 'drivechain
> review'.
>
> Paul
>
>
>
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP
_______________________________________________ bitcoin-dev mailing list bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
