On Mon, Dec 15, 2014 at 3:52 PM, Peter Todd p...@petertodd.org wrote:
Comparisons with the SPV security of sidechains are fallacious. The
alternative to a proof-of-publication system reliant on client-side
validation is a blockchain. The question of whether the token used on
said blockchain
On 13/12/14 04:04, Alex Mizrahi wrote:
Well, client-side validation is mathematically secure, while SPV is
economically secure.
I.e. it is secure if you make several assumptions about economics of the
whole thing.
Comparisons with the SPV security of sidechains are fallacious. The
alternative
On 12/12/14 20:05, Peter Todd wrote:
Secondly using a limited-supply token in a proof-of-publicaton system is
what lets you have secure client side validation rather than the
alternative of 2-way-pegging that requires users to trust miners not to
steal the pegged funds.
Secure and client
On 30/04/14 00:26, Mike Hearn wrote:
These parties wouldn't generally consider themselves attackers
Of course not, attackers rarely do :)
If Bitcoin works correctly nobody should have to care if they consider
themselves attackers, defenders, or little green men from Mars. There
are
On 30/04/14 00:13, Mike Hearn wrote:
I do think we need to move beyond this idea of Bitcoin being some kind
of elegant embodiment of natural mathematical law. It just ain't so.
I haven't seen anybody arguing that it is.
Bitcoin is the elegant embodiment of /artificially contrived/
On 30/04/14 00:13, Mike Hearn wrote:
Every time miners and nodes ignore a block that creates formula() coins
that's a majority vote on a controversial political matter
Actually, there's one more thing I'd like to add. Apologies to the list,
but it bears repeating:
* rejecting a block at
On 30/04/14 23:55, Mike Hearn wrote:
If Bitcoin works correctly nobody should have to care if they consider
themselves attackers, defenders, or little green men from Mars.
One last time, I request that people read the white paper from 2008
before making statements like this. If the
On 27/04/14 11:42, Christophe Biocca wrote: This seems like splitting
hairs, no? A block isn't a guarantee (it can
get orphaned). And as a user of bitcoin (as opposed to a miner), this
change cannot affect any payment you ever receive.
Disagree. Maybe we just have a fundamental disagreement
Agreed. I'm a pragmatist, certainly not anti-change (or even anti-zero-conf.)
Useful and non-controversial hard forks don't keep me awake at night :) I
support your general position on zero-conf payments (that they're useful and we
should make them as reliable as practical.)
But the very
On 26/04/14 01:28, Mike Hearn wrote:
When you have a *bitcoin* TXn buried under 100 blocks you can be damn
sure that money is yours - but only because the rules for interpreting
data in the blockchain are publicly documented and (hopefully)
immutable. If they're mutable then
What about using fraud proofs? Your coinbase only matures if nobody publishes
proof that you signed a competing block.
Then something is at least at stake. When it's your chance to sign a block,
attempting to sign and publish more than one at the same height reliably
punishes you (you
judgement.
On 27 April 2014 11:22:07 AM AEST, Mark Friedenbach m...@monetize.io wrote:
That makes double-spends trivially easy: sign two blocks, withholding
one. Then at a later point in time reveal the second signed block
(demonstrating your own fraud) and force a reorg.
On 04/26/2014 04:44 PM, Gareth
On 25/04/14 20:17, Mike Hearn wrote:
Proving that you can convince the economic majority that the
interpretation of existing blocks is in any way up for grabs would set a
dangerous precedent, and shake some people's faith in Bitcoin's overall
robustness and security (well,
On 25/04/14 20:19, Mike Hearn wrote:
You don't get any money back, but you do get an angry shopkeeper chasing
you down the street / calling the police / blacklisting you from the
store.
If they could do that they'd just take the stolen property back and you
would have failed
On 25/04/14 00:28, Mike Hearn wrote:
Why are we here? We are here because we were brought together by shared
goals.
What are those goals? They were defined at the start of the project by
the creator of the project.
Why do we issue 21 million coins and not 42? Because 21 million is the
On 24/04/14 22:07, Chris Pacia wrote:
It would work but it's an ugly hack IMO. What do people do if they don't
have extra to pay when making a purchase? I have 200 mbtc and want to
buy a 200 mbtc phone but I can't because I need 400 mbtc. Sucks for me.
I don't see why it couldn't work with
16 matches
Mail list logo
