>
> Let me get this straight. You start this whole debate with a "kick the can
> down the road" proposal to increase the block size to 20MB, which obviously
> would require another hard fork in the future, but if someone else proposes
> a similar "kicka the can" proposal you will outright reject
phm got most of this, but...
On Sat, Sep 19, 2015 at 2:53 PM, phm via bitcoin-dev <
bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
> Mike Hearn via bitcoin-dev wrote:
>
> >
> > * Most governments can easily spend enough money to do a 51% attack,
> > especially if they can compel chip fabs
An honest miner is a miner that supports the network by building on top of the
best valid chain. A malicious miner is one who wants to disrupt the Bitcoin
network, not support it, for example by executing a 51% attack which mines
empty blocks on top of the best chain.
/Rune
> Den 19/09/2015
>
> Your argument is that the state is not a threat to a system designed to
> deprive the state of seigniorage, because the state will see that system
> as too important?
>
And so we get to one of the hearts of the debate.
The axiom upon which you and NxtChg disagree is this: he/she believes
>While to many of us that sounds crazy, if you're threat model assumes
>Bitcoin is a legal/regulated service provided by a highly trusted mining
>community it's a reasonable design.
There is a large, grey area all the way to "legal/regulated service provided by
a highly trusted mining
>Your vision of censorship resistance is to become such a strong
>central authority that you can resist it in direct physical confrontation.
>If you succeed at this, you are the threat.
My vision is a strong _decentralized_ system, which is:
a) too important to close,
b) able to provide
On 09/18/2015 11:06 PM, NxtChg via bitcoin-dev wrote:
>> While to many of us that sounds crazy, if you're threat model assumes
>> Bitcoin is a legal/regulated service provided by a highly trusted
>> mining community it's a reasonable design.
>
> There is a large, grey area all the way to
On 09/19/2015 12:57 AM, NxtChg wrote:>
>> Your vision of censorship resistance is to become such a strong
>> central authority that you can resist it in direct physical
>> confrontation. If you succeed at this, you are the threat.
>
> My vision is a strong _decentralized_ system, which is:
>
>
On 9/17/2015 8:27 PM, jl2012 via bitcoin-dev wrote:
> However, requiring 100 block maturity will unfortunately make the
> system much less appealing since the recipient may not like it.
The maturity requirement can be dropped if the expiration height is more
that 100 blocks after inclusion
>Your argument is that the state is not a threat to a system
>designed to deprive the state of seigniorage, because the state will see that
>system as too important?
Well, if you look at governments from the point of youtube illuminati videos,
then, yeah, I guess my position would seem a bit
We need to distinguish between two different things here:
1) A 51% attack, where the majority of mining power is *malicious* (hence
“attack”)
and
2) A fork that exists because of a disagreement in the network, with total
mining power split in two camps, each camp mining peacefully on their
Let me get this straight. You start this whole debate with a "kick the can down the road" proposal to increase the block size to 20MB, which obviously would require another hard fork in the future, but if someone else proposes a similar "kicka the can" proposal you will outright reject it?
12 matches
Mail list logo
