📅 Original date posted:2014-04-24
📝 Original message:>
> Yes, you can reorg out the blocks and actually remove them, but I
>
understood that you were _not_ proposing that quite specifically. But
> instead proposed without reorging taking txouts that were previously
> assigned to one party and simply assigning them to others.
>
Well, my original thought was just to delete the coinbases. But then some
people don't like the idea of destroying money (equivalently, reducing the
system's resolution) so I proposed reallocating it instead. I'm not sure
which is better though. Deletion is closer to what the existing system
allows, for sure.
Would you feel differently if the consequence was UTXO deletion rather than
reallocation? I think the difference makes no impact to the goal of
discouraging double spending.
> ... proposing the mechanism be used to claw back mining income from a
> hardware vendor accused of violating its agreements on the amount of
> self mining / mining on customers hardware.
>
I think this would not be doable in practice, unless there was a way to
identify that a block was mined with pre-sold equipment. Peter points out
that the pool in question is marking their blocks by reusing addresses -
ditto for the double spending against dice sites - but that's a trivial
thing for them to fix. Then it'd be difficult (impossible?) for miners to
identify KnC blocks even if there was a strong majority consensus to delete
their coinbases.
The reason I think this particular change is doable is that it should be
possible to quite reliably identify blocks that are Finney attacking for
profit. That doesn't generalise to any policy though. Blocks are intended
to be structurally identical to each other if best practices are followed
and even with the dire pool situation a big chunk of mining hash power
today is effectively anonymous.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20140424/33b9083b/attachment.html>;
Mike Hearn [ARCHIVE] /
npub17t…4qgyd
2023-06-07 15:19:52
in reply to nevent1q…fjjz
Author Public Key
npub17ty4mumkv43w8wtt0xsz2jypck0gvw0j8xrcg6tpea25z2nh7meqf4qgydPublished at
2023-06-07 15:19:52Event JSON
{
"id": "7270d692cc8689cb7a5df95a4011f7dacd7085cbf0524040fee82d02ef875000",
"pubkey": "f2c95df3766562e3b96b79a0254881c59e8639f23987846961cf55412a77f6f2",
"created_at": 1686151192,
"kind": 1,
"tags": [
[
"e",
"5090665aad23a77b012135979db1e16bc811db23aa511d1ac7d17a56045795a8",
"",
"root"
],
[
"e",
"6dfb4d58ec6b682fa4aedd491f630ee0ba6200a52824690d8a02357d8c62e4e2",
"",
"reply"
],
[
"p",
"4aa6cf9aa5c8e98f401dac603c6a10207509b6a07317676e9d6615f3d7103d73"
]
],
"content": "📅 Original date posted:2014-04-24\n📝 Original message:\u003e\n\u003e Yes, you can reorg out the blocks and actually remove them, but I\n\u003e\nunderstood that you were _not_ proposing that quite specifically. But\n\u003e instead proposed without reorging taking txouts that were previously\n\u003e assigned to one party and simply assigning them to others.\n\u003e\n\nWell, my original thought was just to delete the coinbases. But then some\npeople don't like the idea of destroying money (equivalently, reducing the\nsystem's resolution) so I proposed reallocating it instead. I'm not sure\nwhich is better though. Deletion is closer to what the existing system\nallows, for sure.\n\nWould you feel differently if the consequence was UTXO deletion rather than\nreallocation? I think the difference makes no impact to the goal of\ndiscouraging double spending.\n\n\n\u003e ... proposing the mechanism be used to claw back mining income from a\n\u003e hardware vendor accused of violating its agreements on the amount of\n\u003e self mining / mining on customers hardware.\n\u003e\n\nI think this would not be doable in practice, unless there was a way to\nidentify that a block was mined with pre-sold equipment. Peter points out\nthat the pool in question is marking their blocks by reusing addresses -\nditto for the double spending against dice sites - but that's a trivial\nthing for them to fix. Then it'd be difficult (impossible?) for miners to\nidentify KnC blocks even if there was a strong majority consensus to delete\ntheir coinbases.\n\nThe reason I think this particular change is doable is that it should be\npossible to quite reliably identify blocks that are Finney attacking for\nprofit. That doesn't generalise to any policy though. Blocks are intended\nto be structurally identical to each other if best practices are followed\nand even with the dire pool situation a big chunk of mining hash power\ntoday is effectively anonymous.\n-------------- next part --------------\nAn HTML attachment was scrubbed...\nURL: \u003chttp://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20140424/33b9083b/attachment.html\u003e",
"sig": "991e053b84f4161a0863672735fd668c001c70f387344c9c9e5f0df94cd0ab566cffa33faecbcab9882276a7f146d77a810bab2afc80264bcce0f686f864d71e"
}