On 12/12/14 20:05, Peter Todd wrote:
> Secondly using a limited-supply token in a proof-of-publicaton system is
> what lets you have secure client side validation rather than the
> alternative of 2-way-pegging that requires users to trust miners not to
> steal the pegged funds.
"Secure" and "clie
On 13/12/14 04:04, Alex Mizrahi wrote:
> Well, client-side validation is mathematically secure, while SPV is
> economically secure.
> I.e. it is secure if you make several assumptions about economics of the
> whole thing.
Comparisons with the SPV security of sidechains are fallacious. The
alternat
On Mon, Dec 15, 2014 at 3:52 PM, Peter Todd wrote:
>> Comparisons with the SPV security of sidechains are fallacious. The
>> alternative to a proof-of-publication system reliant on client-side
>> validation is a blockchain. The question of whether the token used on
>> said blockchain should be two
On 25/04/14 00:28, Mike Hearn wrote:
> Why are we here? We are here because we were brought together by shared
> goals.
>
> What are those goals? They were defined at the start of the project by
> the creator of the project.
>
> Why do we issue 21 million coins and not 42? Because 21 million is t
On 24/04/14 22:07, Chris Pacia wrote:
> It would work but it's an ugly hack IMO. What do people do if they don't
> have extra to pay when making a purchase? I have 200 mbtc and want to
> buy a 200 mbtc phone but I can't because I need 400 mbtc. Sucks for me.
I don't see why it couldn't work with j
On 25/04/14 20:17, Mike Hearn wrote:
> Proving that you can convince the economic majority that the
>
> interpretation of existing blocks is in any way up for grabs would set a
> dangerous precedent, and shake some people's faith in Bitcoin's overall
> robustness and security (wel
On 25/04/14 20:19, Mike Hearn wrote:
> You don't get any money back, but you do get an angry shopkeeper chasing
> you down the street / calling the police / blacklisting you from the
> store.
>
>
> If they could do that they'd just take the stolen property back and you
> would have f
On 26/04/14 01:28, Mike Hearn wrote:
> When you have a *bitcoin* TXn buried under 100 blocks you can be damn
>
> sure that money is yours - but only because the rules for interpreting
> data in the blockchain are publicly documented and (hopefully)
> immutable. If they're mutable t
What about using fraud proofs? Your coinbase only matures if nobody publishes
proof that you signed a competing block.
Then something is at least at stake. When it's your chance to sign a block,
attempting to sign and publish more than one at the same height reliably
punishes you (you effectiv
not human judgement.
On 27 April 2014 11:22:07 AM AEST, Mark Friedenbach wrote:
>That makes double-spends trivially easy: sign two blocks, withholding
>one. Then at a later point in time reveal the second signed block
>(demonstrating your own fraud) and force a reorg.
>
>On 04/26/2014
On 27/04/14 11:42, Christophe Biocca wrote:> This seems like splitting
hairs, no? A block isn't a guarantee (it can
> get orphaned). And as a user of bitcoin (as opposed to a miner), this
> change cannot affect any payment you ever receive.
Disagree. Maybe we just have a fundamental disagreement a
Agreed. I'm a pragmatist, certainly not anti-change (or even anti-zero-conf.)
Useful and non-controversial hard forks don't keep me awake at night :) I
support your general position on zero-conf payments (that they're useful and we
should make them as reliable as practical.)
But the very essenc
On 30/04/14 00:26, Mike Hearn wrote:
> These parties wouldn't generally consider themselves attackers
>
>
> Of course not, attackers rarely do :)
If Bitcoin works correctly nobody should have to care if they consider
themselves attackers, defenders, or little green men from Mars. There
are s
On 30/04/14 00:13, Mike Hearn wrote:
> I do think we need to move beyond this idea of Bitcoin being some kind
> of elegant embodiment of natural mathematical law. It just ain't so.
I haven't seen anybody arguing that it is.
Bitcoin is the elegant embodiment of /artificially contrived/
mathematic
On 30/04/14 00:13, Mike Hearn wrote:
> Every time miners and nodes ignore a block that creates >formula() coins
> that's a majority vote on a controversial political matter
Actually, there's one more thing I'd like to add. Apologies to the list,
but it bears repeating:
* rejecting a block at vali
On 30/04/14 23:55, Mike Hearn wrote:
> If Bitcoin works correctly nobody should have to care if they consider
> themselves attackers, defenders, or little green men from Mars.
>
>
> One last time, I request that people read the white paper from 2008
> before making statements like this. I
16 matches
Mail list logo
