Re: [Bitcoin-development] Coinbase reallocation to discourage Finney attacks

2014-04-30 Thread Gareth Williams
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

Re: [Bitcoin-development] Coinbase reallocation to discourage Finney attacks

2014-04-30 Thread Gareth Williams
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/

Re: [Bitcoin-development] Coinbase reallocation to discourage Finney attacks

2014-04-30 Thread Mike Hearn
I think we're going around in circles here so this will be my last message on the thread unless someone comes up with something new. On Wed, Apr 30, 2014 at 3:12 PM, Gareth Williams gac...@gmail.com wrote: If Bitcoin works correctly nobody should have to care if they consider themselves

Re: [Bitcoin-development] Coinbase reallocation to discourage Finney attacks

2014-04-30 Thread Gareth Williams
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

Re: [Bitcoin-development] Coinbase reallocation to discourage Finney attacks

2014-04-30 Thread Gareth Williams
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

Re: [Bitcoin-development] Coinbase reallocation to discourage Finney attacks

2014-04-30 Thread Troy Benjegerdes
On Wed, Apr 30, 2014 at 11:00:06PM +1000, Gareth Williams wrote: 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.

Re: [Bitcoin-development] Coinbase reallocation to discourage Finney attacks

2014-04-30 Thread Jameson Lopp
Perhaps I missed it somewhere, but I don't recall it ever being a goal of Bitcoin to act as a stable long-term store of value. - Jameson On 04/30/2014 01:06 PM, Troy Benjegerdes wrote: On Wed, Apr 30, 2014 at 11:00:06PM +1000, Gareth Williams wrote: On 30/04/14 00:13, Mike Hearn wrote: I do

Re: [Bitcoin-development] Coinbase reallocation to discourage Finney attacks

2014-04-29 Thread Mike Hearn
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. Every time miners and nodes ignore a block that creates formula() coins that's a majority vote on a controversial political matter, as evidenced by the

Re: [Bitcoin-development] Coinbase reallocation to discourage Finney attacks

2014-04-29 Thread Gregory Maxwell
On Tue, Apr 29, 2014 at 7:13 AM, Mike Hearn m...@plan99.net wrote: It only works if the majority of hashpower is controlled by attackers, in which case Bitcoin is already doomed. So it doesn't matter at that point. These parties wouldn't generally consider themselves attackers— nor would many

Re: [Bitcoin-development] Coinbase reallocation to discourage Finney attacks

2014-04-29 Thread Mike Hearn
These parties wouldn't generally consider themselves attackers Of course not, attackers rarely do :) But they are miners who are taking part in malicious double spending. That makes them attackers. If miners don't exist to stop double spending, what do they exist for? I mean, this is

Re: [Bitcoin-development] Coinbase reallocation to discourage Finney attacks

2014-04-29 Thread Justus Ranvier
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 04/29/2014 02:13 PM, 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 think everybody understands that Bitcoin has a positive net

Re: [Bitcoin-development] Coinbase reallocation to discourage Finney attacks

2014-04-27 Thread Gareth Williams
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

Re: [Bitcoin-development] Coinbase reallocation to discourage Finney attacks

2014-04-27 Thread Mike Hearn
That moves us away from a pure trustless system built upon a small democratic foundation (as something of a necessary evil in an imperfect world where humans run our computers and use our system) and toward a democratic system. You don't have to agree, but I hope you can understand the

Re: [Bitcoin-development] Coinbase reallocation to discourage Finney attacks

2014-04-27 Thread Gareth Williams
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

Re: [Bitcoin-development] Coinbase reallocation to discourage Finney attacks

2014-04-26 Thread Gareth Williams
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

Re: [Bitcoin-development] Coinbase reallocation to discourage Finney attacks

2014-04-26 Thread Christophe Biocca
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. Some of the interpretation is already different for coinbase UTXO's (need a valid height, locked for 100

Re: [Bitcoin-development] Coinbase reallocation to discourage Finney attacks

2014-04-25 Thread Mike Hearn
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, mine anyway.) Hmm, then I think your faith needs to be

Re: [Bitcoin-development] Coinbase reallocation to discourage Finney attacks

2014-04-25 Thread Gareth Williams
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,

Re: [Bitcoin-development] Coinbase reallocation to discourage Finney attacks

2014-04-25 Thread Mike Hearn
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 the PoW alone gives me no confidence that the money

Re: [Bitcoin-development] Coinbase reallocation to discourage Finney attacks

2014-04-24 Thread Mike Hearn
On Thu, Apr 24, 2014 at 12:06 AM, Alex Mizrahi alex.mizr...@gmail.comwrote: Different approaches have different trade-offs, and thus different areas of applicability. Proof-of-work's inherent disadvantage is that it takes some time until transaction becomes practically irreversible. On the

Re: [Bitcoin-development] Coinbase reallocation to discourage Finney attacks

2014-04-24 Thread Gregory Maxwell
On Thu, Apr 24, 2014 at 12:58 AM, Mike Hearn m...@plan99.net wrote: The complexity overhead is trivial - we already used coinbase scriptSigs for voting on P2SH, I'm sure it'll be used for voting on other things in future too. We use coinbase sigs to gauge the safety of enforcing a soft fork

Re: [Bitcoin-development] Coinbase reallocation to discourage Finney attacks

2014-04-24 Thread Mike Hearn
On Thu, Apr 24, 2014 at 10:19 AM, Gregory Maxwell gmaxw...@gmail.comwrote: This is not voting. It absolutely is! It was widely discussed as such at the time, here is a thread where people ask how to vote and the operator of Eclipse said he was removing his vote for P2SH:

Re: [Bitcoin-development] Coinbase reallocation to discourage Finney attacks

2014-04-24 Thread Andy Parkins
On Wednesday 23 April 2014 15:31:38 Mike Hearn wrote: There _are_ consequences though: 95% of the time, you end up buying something and paying for it. Yeah, I was imagining a situation in which people who use Bitcoin regularly do buy things they actually want, but wouldn't say no to

Re: [Bitcoin-development] Coinbase reallocation to discourage Finney attacks

2014-04-24 Thread Gregory Maxwell
On Thu, Apr 24, 2014 at 1:39 AM, Mike Hearn m...@plan99.net wrote: It absolutely is! https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=60937.0 May I direct your attention to the third post in that thread? Luke attempting to ret-con the enforcement flag into a vote didn't make it one, and certantly

Re: [Bitcoin-development] Coinbase reallocation to discourage Finney attacks

2014-04-24 Thread Mike Hearn
Yes, you can reorg out the blocks and actually remove them, but I understood that you were _not_ proposing that quite specifically. But instead proposed without reorging taking txouts that were previously assigned to one party and simply assigning them to others. Well, my original thought

Re: [Bitcoin-development] Coinbase reallocation to discourage Finney attacks

2014-04-24 Thread Jorge Timón
On 4/23/14, Mike Hearn m...@plan99.net wrote: I guess word honest might have different meanings, that can be a source of confusing. 1. Honest -- not trying to destroy bitcoin 2. Honest -- following rules which are not required by the protocol I'm using it in the same sense Satoshi used it.

Re: [Bitcoin-development] Coinbase reallocation to discourage Finney attacks

2014-04-24 Thread Mike Hearn
On Thu, Apr 24, 2014 at 1:22 PM, Jorge Timón jti...@monetize.io wrote: I'm using it in the same sense Satoshi used it. Honest miners work to prevent double spends. That's the entire justification for their existence. I thought the mechanism they used to prevent double-spends was proof of

Re: [Bitcoin-development] Coinbase reallocation to discourage Finney attacks

2014-04-24 Thread Peter Todd
On Thu, Apr 24, 2014 at 11:56:23AM +0200, Mike Hearn wrote: ... proposing the mechanism be used to claw back mining income from a hardware vendor accused of violating its agreements on the amount of self mining / mining on customers hardware. I think this would not be doable in

Re: [Bitcoin-development] Coinbase reallocation to discourage Finney attacks

2014-04-24 Thread Jorge Timón
On 4/24/14, Mike Hearn m...@plan99.net wrote: No! This is a misunderstanding. The mechanism they use to prevent double spends is to *ignore double spends*. The blocks they created indicate the ordering of transactions they saw and proof of work is used to arrive at a shared consensus ordering

Re: [Bitcoin-development] Coinbase reallocation to discourage Finney attacks

2014-04-24 Thread Mike Hearn
Like I said before, that leads to the obvious next step of deleting/stealing their coinbases if they don't identify themselves. And as I said before, that's a huge leap. A majority of miners deciding double spending needs tougher enforcement doesn't imply they also think all miners should

Re: [Bitcoin-development] Coinbase reallocation to discourage Finney attacks

2014-04-24 Thread Mike Hearn
And that's achieved through proof of work, not through miner's honesty. You can't disentangle the two. Proof of work just makes a block chain hard to tamper with. What it contains is arbitrary. Honest miners build a block chain that's intended to stop double spending. Dishonest miners don't.

Re: [Bitcoin-development] Coinbase reallocation to discourage Finney attacks

2014-04-24 Thread Peter Todd
On Thu, Apr 24, 2014 at 10:47:35AM -0400, Christophe Biocca wrote: Actually Peter, coinbase confiscations are a much worse mechanism for enforcement of widespread censorship rules than simple orphaning. They lose their power when the transaction miners are punished for can build up over time

Re: [Bitcoin-development] Coinbase reallocation to discourage Finney attacks

2014-04-24 Thread Sergio Lerner
On 23/04/2014 05:51 p.m., Mike Hearn wrote: On Wed, Apr 23, 2014 at 10:44 PM, Adam Ritter arit...@gmail.com mailto:arit...@gmail.com wrote: Isn't a faster blockchain for transactions (maybe as a sidechain) solving the problem? If there would be a safe way for 0-confirmation

Re: [Bitcoin-development] Coinbase reallocation to discourage Finney attacks

2014-04-24 Thread Mike Hearn
Thanks Sergio! On Thu, Apr 24, 2014 at 5:13 PM, Sergio Lerner sergioler...@certimix.comwrote: For more information you can check my post: http://bitslog.wordpress.com/2014/02/17/5-sec-block-interval/ Also NimbleCoin is a new alt-coin that uses 5-sec block intervals, allows 100 tps and

Re: [Bitcoin-development] Coinbase reallocation to discourage Finney attacks

2014-04-24 Thread Jorge Timón
On 4/24/14, Mike Hearn m...@plan99.net wrote: You can't disentangle the two. Proof of work just makes a block chain hard to tamper with. What it contains is arbitrary. Honest miners build a block chain that's intended to stop double spending. Dishonest miners don't. They're both engaging in

Re: [Bitcoin-development] Coinbase reallocation to discourage Finney attacks

2014-04-24 Thread Christophe Biocca
Casting that vote does them no harm. Every time another pool joins the blacklist, there's no harm to them to doing so. I actually agree that this is a problem, but that's actually not inherent in the proposed enforcement mechanism (just the current voting rules). Here's an alternate: - To

Re: [Bitcoin-development] Coinbase reallocation to discourage Finney attacks

2014-04-24 Thread Mike Hearn
Casting that vote does them no harm. Every time another pool joins the blacklist, there's no harm to them to doing so. At some point they will reach a majority These statements do not follow from each other. --

Re: [Bitcoin-development] Coinbase reallocation to discourage Finney attacks

2014-04-24 Thread Justus Ranvier
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 04/24/2014 03:37 PM, Jorge Timón wrote: The 21 million bitcoin limit is not important because of its exact value, nor is it important because Satoshi picked it. The 21 million limit is important because users hold bitcoin based on the promise

Re: [Bitcoin-development] Coinbase reallocation to discourage Finney attacks

2014-04-24 Thread Gareth Williams
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

[Bitcoin-development] Coinbase reallocation to discourage Finney attacks

2014-04-23 Thread Mike Hearn
Lately someone launched Finney attacks as a service (BitUndo). As a reminder for newcomers, Finney attacks are where a miner secretly works on a block containing a double spend. When they eventually find a block, they run to the merchant and pay, then broadcast the block. In a simpler variant of

Re: [Bitcoin-development] Coinbase reallocation to discourage Finney attacks

2014-04-23 Thread Andy Parkins
On Wednesday 23 Apr 2014 08:55:30 Mike Hearn wrote: Even with their woeful security many merchants see 1-2% credit card chargeback rates, and chargebacks can be disputed. In fact merchants win about 40% of chargeback disputes. So if N was only, say, 5%, and there was a large enough population

Re: [Bitcoin-development] Coinbase reallocation to discourage Finney attacks

2014-04-23 Thread Christophe Biocca
Just a few issues with the idea as it currently stands: 1. This provides a very strong incentive to always vote for reallocating a block if it isn't yours, regardless of whether it's bad or not (there's a positive expected return to voting to reallocate coinbases from other miners). The incentive

Re: [Bitcoin-development] Coinbase reallocation to discourage Finney attacks

2014-04-23 Thread Andy Parkins
On Wednesday 23 Apr 2014 12:45:34 Mike Hearn wrote: OK, sure, let's say most Bitcoin users will be honest (we hope). But unfortunately in a situation where fraud is possible users wouldn't necessarily distribute evenly over transactions. That's true, but even in the worst that that 5% hashing

Re: [Bitcoin-development] Coinbase reallocation to discourage Finney attacks

2014-04-23 Thread Justus Ranvier
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 04/23/2014 07:55 AM, Mike Hearn wrote: 2. Miners can vote to reallocate the coinbase value of bad blocks before they mature. If a majority of blocks leading up to maturity vote for reallocation, the value goes into a pot that subsequent blocks

Re: [Bitcoin-development] Coinbase reallocation to discourage Finney attacks

2014-04-23 Thread Alex Mizrahi
This is outright ridiculous. Zero-confirmation double-spending is a small problem, and possible solutions are known. (E.g. trusted third party + multi-sig addresses for small-value transactions.) On the other hand, protocol changes like described above might have game-theoretical implications

Re: [Bitcoin-development] Coinbase reallocation to discourage Finney attacks

2014-04-23 Thread Alex Mizrahi
And it still would. Non-collusive miners cast votes based on the outcome of their own attempts to double spend. Individually rational strategy is to vote for coinbase reallocation on every block. Yes, in that case nobody will get reward. It is similar to prisoner's dilemma: equilibrium has

Re: [Bitcoin-development] Coinbase reallocation to discourage Finney attacks

2014-04-23 Thread Pieter Wuille
On Wed, Apr 23, 2014 at 5:34 PM, Kevin kevinsisco61...@gmail.com wrote: I have some questions: 1. How can we work towards solving the double-spending problem? We have this awesome technology that solves the double-spending problem. It's called a blockchain. Of course, it only works when

Re: [Bitcoin-development] Coinbase reallocation to discourage Finney attacks

2014-04-23 Thread Peter Todd
On Wed, Apr 23, 2014 at 05:41:26PM +0200, Pieter Wuille wrote: On Wed, Apr 23, 2014 at 5:34 PM, Kevin kevinsisco61...@gmail.com wrote: I have some questions: 1. How can we work towards solving the double-spending problem? We have this awesome technology that solves the double-spending

Re: [Bitcoin-development] Coinbase reallocation to discourage Finney attacks

2014-04-23 Thread Christophe Biocca
It's not necessary that this coinbase retribution be either profitable or risk-free for this scheme to work. I think we should separate out the different layers of the proposal: 1. Attacking the coinbase instead of orphaning allows for 100 blocks' time for a consensus to be reached, rather than

Re: [Bitcoin-development] Coinbase reallocation to discourage Finney attacks

2014-04-23 Thread Chris Pacia
What is the advantage of this proposal over just orphaning the block with double spends? There's currently a set of rules which government what constitutes a valid block. Miners don't build on blocks that don't accord with those rules out of fear that a major won't follow and they will waste

Re: [Bitcoin-development] Coinbase reallocation to discourage Finney attacks

2014-04-23 Thread Kevin
On 4/23/2014 12:04 PM, Christophe Biocca wrote: It's not necessary that this coinbase retribution be either profitable or risk-free for this scheme to work. I think we should separate out the different layers of the proposal: 1. Attacking the coinbase instead of orphaning allows for 100

Re: [Bitcoin-development] Coinbase reallocation to discourage Finney attacks

2014-04-23 Thread Justus Ranvier
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 04/23/2014 03:07 PM, Mike Hearn wrote: On Wed, Apr 23, 2014 at 4:52 PM, Justus Ranvier justusranv...@gmail.comwrote: If enough miners don't like a block that has been mined, they can all work to orphan it without any change to the protocol

Re: [Bitcoin-development] Coinbase reallocation to discourage Finney attacks

2014-04-23 Thread Gavin Andresen
I've formulated my replies to you and this proposal in a more public venue, where such discussions of existential changes to the protocol more rightfully belong I strongly disagree. It makes perfect sense to discuss changes here, first, where there are lots of people who understand how the

Re: [Bitcoin-development] Coinbase reallocation to discourage Finney attacks

2014-04-23 Thread Justus Ranvier
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 04/23/2014 05:47 PM, Gavin Andresen wrote: And why do you think your blog is more public than this open, publicly archived mailing list??? Non-developers are more comfortable using social media tools. Blog posts can be shared, Tweeted, and

Re: [Bitcoin-development] Coinbase reallocation to discourage Finney attacks

2014-04-23 Thread Mike Hearn
Non-developers are more comfortable using social media tools. Blog posts can be shared, Tweeted, and commented upon using nothing more than a web browser. I don't think Twitter is an appropriate medium for discussing the details of byzantine consensus algorithms. I'm not going to bother

Re: [Bitcoin-development] Coinbase reallocation to discourage Finney attacks

2014-04-23 Thread Justus Ranvier
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 04/23/2014 06:37 PM, Mike Hearn wrote: If you want to try and argue that the development list is the wrong place to discuss development, please do so on another thread (or your blog). Let's keep this thread for discussion of the original

Re: [Bitcoin-development] Coinbase reallocation to discourage Finney attacks

2014-04-23 Thread Gregory Maxwell
On Wed, Apr 23, 2014 at 12:55 AM, Mike Hearn m...@plan99.net wrote: Lately someone launched Finney attacks as a service (BitUndo). As a reminder for newcomers, Finney attacks are where a miner secretly works on a block containing a double spend. Hm? I didn't think this is at all what they did.

Re: [Bitcoin-development] Coinbase reallocation to discourage Finney attacks

2014-04-23 Thread Drak
Cut it out with the ad hominem attacks please. If you cant be civil, please go away until you learn some manners. I think the issue being discussed is do you orphan an entire block causing distress to users as well, or try to just cause distress just to the evil miner? This discussion is about

Re: [Bitcoin-development] Coinbase reallocation to discourage Finney attacks

2014-04-23 Thread Mike Hearn
On Wed, Apr 23, 2014 at 8:57 PM, Gregory Maxwell gmaxw...@gmail.com wrote: Hm? I didn't think this is at all what they did. What they claim to do is to prioritize transactions in their mempool from people who pay them That's the definition of a Finney attack, right? A tx is broadcast and

Re: [Bitcoin-development] Coinbase reallocation to discourage Finney attacks]

2014-04-23 Thread Sergio Lerner
-development email list: - Forwarded message from Mike Hearn m...@plan99.net - Date: Wed, 23 Apr 2014 09:55:30 +0200 From: Mike Hearn m...@plan99.net To: Bitcoin Dev bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net Subject: [Bitcoin-development] Coinbase reallocation to discourage Finney

Re: [Bitcoin-development] Coinbase reallocation to discourage Finney attacks

2014-04-23 Thread Mike Hearn
What you're talking about is just disagreement about the content of the memory pool That's the same thing. Whilst you're mining your double spend tx, it's in your mempool but you don't broadcast it as per normal. Then when you find the block you broadcast it to override everyone elses

Re: [Bitcoin-development] Coinbase reallocation to discourage Finney attacks

2014-04-23 Thread Mike Hearn
On Wed, Apr 23, 2014 at 10:24 PM, Gregory Maxwell gmaxw...@gmail.comwrote: Right, this works in the Bitcoin network today absent any collusion by the miners. You give one miner a transaction and you give every other node you can reach another transaction. Yes, but that can be fixed with

Re: [Bitcoin-development] Coinbase reallocation to discourage Finney attacks

2014-04-23 Thread Adam Ritter
Isn't a faster blockchain for transactions (maybe as a sidechain) solving the problem? If there would be a safe way for 0-confirmation transactions, the Bitcoin blockchain wouldn't even be needed. On Wed, Apr 23, 2014 at 10:37 PM, Mike Hearn m...@plan99.net wrote: On Wed, Apr 23, 2014 at 10:24

Re: [Bitcoin-development] Coinbase reallocation to discourage Finney attacks

2014-04-23 Thread Gregory Maxwell
On Wed, Apr 23, 2014 at 1:44 PM, Adam Ritter arit...@gmail.com wrote: Isn't a faster blockchain for transactions (maybe as a sidechain) solving the problem? If there would be a safe way for 0-confirmation transactions, the Bitcoin blockchain wouldn't even be needed. Large scale consensus can't

Re: [Bitcoin-development] Coinbase reallocation to discourage Finney attacks

2014-04-23 Thread Daniel Krawisz
The memory pool is just talk. There is no expectation that the memory pool has to satisfy some standard as to what will eventually exist in the block chain, and there are any number of ways that people could communicate transactions to one another without putting them in the memory pool. The

Re: [Bitcoin-development] Coinbase reallocation to discourage Finney attacks

2014-04-23 Thread Tier Nolan
An interesting experiment would be a transaction proof of publication chain. Each transaction would be added to that chain when it is received. It could be merge mined with the main chain. If the size was limited, then it doesn't even require spam protection. Blocks could be discouraged if

Re: [Bitcoin-development] Coinbase reallocation to discourage Finney attacks

2014-04-23 Thread Gregory Maxwell
On Wed, Apr 23, 2014 at 2:23 PM, Tier Nolan tier.no...@gmail.com wrote: An interesting experiment would be a transaction proof of publication chain. Each transaction would be added to that chain when it is received. It could be merge mined with the main chain. If the size was limited, then

Re: [Bitcoin-development] Coinbase reallocation to discourage Finney attacks

2014-04-23 Thread Alex Mizrahi
These sorts of proposals are all just ways of saying block chains kind of suck and we should go back to using trusted third parties. No. Different approaches have different trade-offs, and thus different areas of applicability. Proof-of-work's inherent disadvantage is that it takes some time

Re: [Bitcoin-development] Coinbase reallocation to discourage Finney attacks

2014-04-23 Thread Tier Nolan
On Wed, Apr 23, 2014 at 10:39 PM, Gregory Maxwell gmaxw...@gmail.comwrote: You can see me proposing this kind of thing in a number of places (e.g. http://download.wpsoftware.net/bitcoin/wizards/2014-04-15.txt p2pool only forces the subsidy today, but the same mechnism could instead force

Re: [Bitcoin-development] Coinbase reallocation to discourage Finney attacks

2014-04-23 Thread Tom Harding
On 4/23/2014 2:23 PM, Tier Nolan wrote: An interesting experiment would be a transaction proof of publication chain. What if a transaction could simply point back to an earlier transaction, forming a chain? Not a separately mined blockchain, just a way to establish an official publication