Is it possible to make Protonmail quote messages using > ? When I read this in mutt it's all run together like so:
On Tue, Jan 10, 2017 at 04:38:32PM -0500, Ignotus Peverell wrote: > I'm just getting to this, a week late. > > Never too late, especially when no syncing code has been written yet :) > > > I really don't like this "horizon" model. > > There is some "horizon" model inherent to MW that you're ignoring: as of when > does one get the full UTXO set? If you get it at block (head-100), what if > there's a valid fork at (head-110)? There's some inherent complication in the > security model there. > > > What does a node do in the presence of multiple forks who disagree at the > horizon, but which have different total difficulties? How long after a node > has made a decision on the real chain can this be modified? > > In the presence of multiple forks a node backtracks, in the extreme case > leading to what you suggest: the full header history. > > > At best this seems very hard to analyze. At worst it leads to DoS attacks > > That's the argument I'm the most sympathetic to: it's harder to analyze. I'm > still questioning whether it's worth it or not. > > But even bitcoin's security model relies strongly on incentives. So if you're > willing to spend 2 weeks worth of proof of work (for example) faster than the > rest of the chain just to make new nodes fail bootstrapping, why not just do > a 51% attack that can work immediately and gives you a lot more control? > > > it seems like you can trick a node into rewriting its history > > No, not after bootstrap. > > > trick it into downloading and fully validating every block by conflicting at > decreasing heights, > > Not without proving more and more work, especially after a successful > bootstrap. > > > In fact if the proposed security model is ok, I don't know what the point of > MW is at all, you can just fork Bitcoin, add a horizon and magic "can't reach > consensus" rule, and you'll get the same security model without so much > research and development. > > Now you're getting glib :D > > I agree however that the security model becomes a little less clear and that > may not be something we want as a default from the start but more something > we can explore later on. However I'll make a couple more points: > > - We're discussing the "limited history" mode right now, there's still a full > node mode. I did ask in my first email whether we should have full nodes also > do cut-through. > > - I think the UTXO horizon is just as tricky as the header horizon: it's not > as well understood and the DoS vectors could have more repercussion in terms > of traffic. > > > And as always, thanks a lot for the review and analysis! > > - Igno > -- > Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~mimblewimble > Post to : mimblewimble@lists.launchpad.net > Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~mimblewimble > More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp -- Andrew Poelstra Mathematics Department, Blockstream Email: apoelstra at wpsoftware.net Web: https://www.wpsoftware.net/andrew "A goose alone, I suppose, can know the loneliness of geese who can never find their peace, whether north or south or west or east" --Joanna Newsom
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
-- Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~mimblewimble Post to : mimblewimble@lists.launchpad.net Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~mimblewimble More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
