Allen Piscitello [ARCHIVE] on Nostr: 📅 Original date posted:2015-09-29 📝 Original message:>I started this thread as ...
📅 Original date posted:2015-09-29
📝 Original message:>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.
When you start with the assumption that anyone who disagrees with you is
insane or crazy, I can see why you have such difficulty.
On Tue, Sep 29, 2015 at 1:01 PM, Gavin Andresen <gavinandresen at gmail.com>
wrote:
> 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/20150929/6fcb15b7/attachment.html>;
📝 Original message:>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.
When you start with the assumption that anyone who disagrees with you is
insane or crazy, I can see why you have such difficulty.
On Tue, Sep 29, 2015 at 1:01 PM, Gavin Andresen <gavinandresen at gmail.com>
wrote:
> 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/20150929/6fcb15b7/attachment.html>;