email at yancy.lol [ARCHIVE] on Nostr: 📅 Original date posted:2022-10-21 📝 Original message:> ...and the easiest way ...
📅 Original date posted:2022-10-21
📝 Original message:> ...and the easiest way to avoid Bitcoin being a system that doesn't
> arbitrarily
> change rules, is to rely on economically rational rules that aren't
> likely to
> change!
Yes, I think many people on this thread have been making the same point.
This is the basis of the Nash Equilibrium, from what I remember.
> This, Satoshi (who doesn't really matter anyways I guess?)
It doesn't seem to me Satoshi was classically trained in CS else maybe
he/she/they might have referenced the Nash Equilibrium. Looking at some
of the other references, including a statistics book titled "An
Introduction to Probability Theory and its Applications" from 1957 makes
me think this Satoshi person was closer in training and practice to a
mathematician.
Cheers,
-Yancy
On 2022-10-21 02:26, Peter Todd via bitcoin-dev wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 20, 2022 at 04:54:00PM -0700, Jeremy Rubin wrote:
>
>> The difference between honest majority and longest chain is that the
>> longest chain bug was something acknowledged by Satoshi & patched
>> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/commit/40cd0369419323f8d7385950e20342e998c994e1#diff-623e3fd6da1a45222eeec71496747b31R420
>> .
>>
>> OTOH, we have more explicit references that the honest majority really
>> should be thought of as good guys vs bad guys... e.g.
>
> The point is Satoshi got a lot of very fundamental stuff wrong.
> Bringing up
> what Satoshi wrote now, almost 14 years later, misleads less-technical
> readers
> into thinking our understanding of Bitcoin is still based on that
> early,
> incorrect, understanding.
>
> Incidentally, you realize that it was _Satoshi_ who added RBF to
> Bitcoin with
> nSequence replacements. My contribution was to fix that obviously
> broken design
> with fee-based RBF (with nSequence a transaction could be replaced up
> to 4
> billion times, using essentially unlimited P2P bandwidth; it was a
> terrible
> idea).
>
>> I do think the case can be fairly made for full RBF, but if you don't
>> grok
>> the above maybe you won't have as much empathy for people who built a
>> business around particular aspects of the Bitcoin network that they
>> feel
>> are now being changed. They have every right to be mad about that and
>> make
>> disagreements known and argue for why we should preserve these
>> properties.
>
> Those people run mild sybil attacks on the network in their efforts to
> "mitigate risk" by monitoring propagation; fundamentally doing so is
> centralizing and unfair, as only a small number of companies can do
> that
> without DoS attacking the P2P network. It's pretty obvious that
> reliance to
> zeroconf is harmful to Bitcoin, and people trying to do that have
> repeatedly
> taken big losses when their risk mitigations turned out to not work.
> Their only
> right to be mad comes from the 1st Ammendment.
>
>> As someone who wants for Bitcoin to be a system which doesn't
>> arbitrarily
>> change rules based on the whims of others, I think it important that
>> we can
>> steelman and provide strong cases for why our actions might be in the
>> wrong, so that we make sure our justifications are not only
>> well-justified,
>> but that we can communicate them clearly to all participants in a
>> global
>> value network.
>
> ...and the easiest way to avoid Bitcoin being a system that doesn't
> arbitrarily
> change rules, is to rely on economically rational rules that aren't
> likely to
> change!
>
> _______________________________________________
> bitcoin-dev mailing list
> bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org
> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20221021/3dff1bad/attachment-0001.html>;
📝 Original message:> ...and the easiest way to avoid Bitcoin being a system that doesn't
> arbitrarily
> change rules, is to rely on economically rational rules that aren't
> likely to
> change!
Yes, I think many people on this thread have been making the same point.
This is the basis of the Nash Equilibrium, from what I remember.
> This, Satoshi (who doesn't really matter anyways I guess?)
It doesn't seem to me Satoshi was classically trained in CS else maybe
he/she/they might have referenced the Nash Equilibrium. Looking at some
of the other references, including a statistics book titled "An
Introduction to Probability Theory and its Applications" from 1957 makes
me think this Satoshi person was closer in training and practice to a
mathematician.
Cheers,
-Yancy
On 2022-10-21 02:26, Peter Todd via bitcoin-dev wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 20, 2022 at 04:54:00PM -0700, Jeremy Rubin wrote:
>
>> The difference between honest majority and longest chain is that the
>> longest chain bug was something acknowledged by Satoshi & patched
>> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/commit/40cd0369419323f8d7385950e20342e998c994e1#diff-623e3fd6da1a45222eeec71496747b31R420
>> .
>>
>> OTOH, we have more explicit references that the honest majority really
>> should be thought of as good guys vs bad guys... e.g.
>
> The point is Satoshi got a lot of very fundamental stuff wrong.
> Bringing up
> what Satoshi wrote now, almost 14 years later, misleads less-technical
> readers
> into thinking our understanding of Bitcoin is still based on that
> early,
> incorrect, understanding.
>
> Incidentally, you realize that it was _Satoshi_ who added RBF to
> Bitcoin with
> nSequence replacements. My contribution was to fix that obviously
> broken design
> with fee-based RBF (with nSequence a transaction could be replaced up
> to 4
> billion times, using essentially unlimited P2P bandwidth; it was a
> terrible
> idea).
>
>> I do think the case can be fairly made for full RBF, but if you don't
>> grok
>> the above maybe you won't have as much empathy for people who built a
>> business around particular aspects of the Bitcoin network that they
>> feel
>> are now being changed. They have every right to be mad about that and
>> make
>> disagreements known and argue for why we should preserve these
>> properties.
>
> Those people run mild sybil attacks on the network in their efforts to
> "mitigate risk" by monitoring propagation; fundamentally doing so is
> centralizing and unfair, as only a small number of companies can do
> that
> without DoS attacking the P2P network. It's pretty obvious that
> reliance to
> zeroconf is harmful to Bitcoin, and people trying to do that have
> repeatedly
> taken big losses when their risk mitigations turned out to not work.
> Their only
> right to be mad comes from the 1st Ammendment.
>
>> As someone who wants for Bitcoin to be a system which doesn't
>> arbitrarily
>> change rules based on the whims of others, I think it important that
>> we can
>> steelman and provide strong cases for why our actions might be in the
>> wrong, so that we make sure our justifications are not only
>> well-justified,
>> but that we can communicate them clearly to all participants in a
>> global
>> value network.
>
> ...and the easiest way to avoid Bitcoin being a system that doesn't
> arbitrarily
> change rules, is to rely on economically rational rules that aren't
> likely to
> change!
>
> _______________________________________________
> bitcoin-dev mailing list
> bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org
> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20221021/3dff1bad/attachment-0001.html>;