Gavin Andresen [ARCHIVE] on Nostr: š Original date posted:2015-09-29 š Original message:We really shouldn't have ...
š
Original date posted:2015-09-29
š Original message:We really shouldn't have to go over "Bitcoin 101" on this mailing list, and
this discussion should move to the not-yet-created more general discussion
list. I started this thread as a sanity check on myself, because I keep
seeing smart people saying that two chains could persist for more than a
few days after a hard fork, and I still don't see how that would possibly
work.
So: "fraud" would be 51% miners sending you bitcoin in exchange for
something of value, you wait for confirmations and send them that something
of value, and then the 51% reverses the transaction.
Running a full node doesn't help.
On Tue, Sep 29, 2015 at 1:55 PM, Allen Piscitello <
allen.piscitello at gmail.com> wrote:
> >A dishonest miner majority can commit fraud against you, they can mine
> only empty blocks, they can do various other things that render your money
> worthless.
>
> Mining empty blocks is not fraud.
>
> If you want to use terms like "honest miners" and "fraud", please define
> them so we can at least be on the same page.
>
> I am defining an honest miner as one that follows the rules of the
> protocol. Obviously your definition is different.
>
> On Tue, Sep 29, 2015 at 12:51 PM, Mike Hearn <hearn at vinumeris.com> wrote:
>
>> >because Bitcoin's basic security assumption is that a supermajority of
>>> miners are 'honest.'
>>>
>>> Only if you rely on SPV.
>>>
>>
>> No, you rely on miners honesty even if you run a full node. This is in
>> the white paper. A dishonest miner majority can commit fraud against you,
>> they can mine only empty blocks, they can do various other things that
>> render your money worthless.
>>
>
>
--
--
Gavin Andresen
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20150929/e754296f/attachment.html>;
š Original message:We really shouldn't have to go over "Bitcoin 101" on this mailing list, and
this discussion should move to the not-yet-created more general discussion
list. I started this thread as a sanity check on myself, because I keep
seeing smart people saying that two chains could persist for more than a
few days after a hard fork, and I still don't see how that would possibly
work.
So: "fraud" would be 51% miners sending you bitcoin in exchange for
something of value, you wait for confirmations and send them that something
of value, and then the 51% reverses the transaction.
Running a full node doesn't help.
On Tue, Sep 29, 2015 at 1:55 PM, Allen Piscitello <
allen.piscitello at gmail.com> wrote:
> >A dishonest miner majority can commit fraud against you, they can mine
> only empty blocks, they can do various other things that render your money
> worthless.
>
> Mining empty blocks is not fraud.
>
> If you want to use terms like "honest miners" and "fraud", please define
> them so we can at least be on the same page.
>
> I am defining an honest miner as one that follows the rules of the
> protocol. Obviously your definition is different.
>
> On Tue, Sep 29, 2015 at 12:51 PM, Mike Hearn <hearn at vinumeris.com> wrote:
>
>> >because Bitcoin's basic security assumption is that a supermajority of
>>> miners are 'honest.'
>>>
>>> Only if you rely on SPV.
>>>
>>
>> No, you rely on miners honesty even if you run a full node. This is in
>> the white paper. A dishonest miner majority can commit fraud against you,
>> they can mine only empty blocks, they can do various other things that
>> render your money worthless.
>>
>
>
--
--
Gavin Andresen
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20150929/e754296f/attachment.html>;