Gavin, you assume that users must necessarily always follow the
hashrate majority, but this is not true.
In fact, it is the opposite: market forces make the hashrate follow the users.
Not following the hashrate majority is not necessarily insane.
If some users aren't happy with the new hardfork ru
>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
insan
>
> Mining empty blocks is not fraud.
>
I didn't say it was, sorry, the comma was separating two list items. By
"fraud" I meant double spending. Mining only empty blocks would be a DoS
attack rather than double spending.
___
bitcoin-dev mailing list
bitc
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
fe
>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 th
>
> >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 empt
>If you start with the premise that more than half of Bitcoin miners would
do something crazy that would either destroy Bitcoin or would be completely
unacceptable to you, personally... then maybe you should look for some
other system that you might trust more, because Bitcoin's basic security
assu
On Tue, Sep 29, 2015 at 1:24 PM, Allen Piscitello <
allen.piscite...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I fail to see how always following a majority of miners no matter what
> their actions somehow equates to insanity.
Ok, I have a hidden assumption: I assume most miners are also not
completely insane.
I hav
You're entire argument seems to be based on this assumption.
>I support the 95% chain (because I'm not insane)
I fail to see how always following a majority of miners no matter what
their actions somehow equates to insanity.
On Tue, Sep 29, 2015 at 9:04 AM, Gavin Andresen via bitcoin-dev <
bitc
You don't need to appeal to human psychology. At 75% threshold, it takes
only 25.01% of the hashpower to report but not actually enforce the fork to
cause the majority hashpower to remain on the old chain, but for upgraded
clients to start rejecting the old chain. With 95% the same problem exists
b
At the 95% threshold, I don't think it would happen unless there was a very
strong motivating factor, like a small group believing that CLTV was a
conspiracy run by the NSA agent John Titor to contaminate our precious bodily
fluids with time-traveling traveler's cheques.
At the 75% threshold, I
I keep seeing statements like this:
On Tue, Sep 29, 2015 at 9:30 AM, Jonathan Toomim (Toomim Bros) via
bitcoin-dev wrote:
> As a further benefit to hard forks, anybody who is ideologically opposed
> to the change can continue to use the old version successfully, as long as
> there are enough min
12 matches
Mail list logo
