📅 Original date posted:2014-04-30
📝 Original message: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 validation
Is /very different/ from:
* reinterpreting a block that has already passed validation
Nodes ignoring a block that creates >formula() coins is rejection at
block *validation*. That's the protocol working as it is supposed to.
It's deliberately an all-or-nothing mechanism; you can't pick and choose
which blocks you like. If 51% of the network say your block is invalid,
they're now on a different fork. The consequences are this drastic on
purpose, for stability.
Nodes reinterpreting a block that has already passed validation is
almost the polar opposite of this. They're /ignoring the protocol/ and
making up their own meaning for stuff. Sidestepping the mechanism in the
paragraph above. I would hope it'd be self evident that this is dangerous.
Adam Back is arguing practicality in this thread. I'm arguing
fundamental principle. (And, er, someone else is randomly throwing
around ad hominems, which we'll politely ignore; Mike could work for
Lucifer himself and his good ideas would still be good, and his bad
ideas would still be bad, so let's just stick to the ideas eh.)
So, fundamental principle: don't reinterpret history!
We have validation for a very good reason. Undermine it and you might as
well have an unvalidated system like Counterparty, which I wouldn't
ever trust with more than the value of a small hamburger.
If the economic majority starts reinterpreting history (through whatever
voting mechanism / side-channel you like) that completely undermines
Bitcoin's validation, and its PoW. It's worse than 51% of miners
deciding to rewrite history.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 555 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20140501/cba8ecc6/attachment.sig>;
Gareth Williams [ARCHIVE] /
npub1jk…373ck
2023-06-07 15:19:42
in reply to nevent1q…tm8k
Author Public Key
npub1jkdfcglr59lwnhek94l393g0hhhaj0v5yzz3n5s3p0r9u0576sgs7373ckPublished at
2023-06-07 15:19:42Event JSON
{
"id": "82cd40e1fe366376674ad11f30112064e8cba1ad39f2b7f05571c4200bb86744",
"pubkey": "959a9c23e3a17ee9df362d7f12c50fbdefd93d94208519d2110bc65e3e9ed411",
"created_at": 1686151182,
"kind": 1,
"tags": [
[
"e",
"5090665aad23a77b012135979db1e16bc811db23aa511d1ac7d17a56045795a8",
"",
"root"
],
[
"e",
"3343609848dccd0160aa6f0b980636bfc9b8ccf1e0dacb5a16806cf02e181202",
"",
"reply"
],
[
"p",
"45d091c7bcdbb8674dc8b91c60f7323053ab1432c4c882fd2d9897fe502eebed"
]
],
"content": "📅 Original date posted:2014-04-30\n📝 Original message:On 30/04/14 00:13, Mike Hearn wrote:\n\u003e Every time miners and nodes ignore a block that creates \u003eformula() coins\n\u003e that's a majority vote on a controversial political matter\n\nActually, there's one more thing I'd like to add. Apologies to the list,\nbut it bears repeating:\n\n* rejecting a block at validation\n\nIs /very different/ from:\n\n* reinterpreting a block that has already passed validation\n\nNodes ignoring a block that creates \u003eformula() coins is rejection at\nblock *validation*. That's the protocol working as it is supposed to.\nIt's deliberately an all-or-nothing mechanism; you can't pick and choose\nwhich blocks you like. If 51% of the network say your block is invalid,\nthey're now on a different fork. The consequences are this drastic on\npurpose, for stability.\n\nNodes reinterpreting a block that has already passed validation is\nalmost the polar opposite of this. They're /ignoring the protocol/ and\nmaking up their own meaning for stuff. Sidestepping the mechanism in the\nparagraph above. I would hope it'd be self evident that this is dangerous.\n\nAdam Back is arguing practicality in this thread. I'm arguing\nfundamental principle. (And, er, someone else is randomly throwing\naround ad hominems, which we'll politely ignore; Mike could work for\nLucifer himself and his good ideas would still be good, and his bad\nideas would still be bad, so let's just stick to the ideas eh.)\n\nSo, fundamental principle: don't reinterpret history!\n\nWe have validation for a very good reason. Undermine it and you might as\nwell have an unvalidated system like Counterparty, which I wouldn't\never trust with more than the value of a small hamburger.\n\nIf the economic majority starts reinterpreting history (through whatever\nvoting mechanism / side-channel you like) that completely undermines\nBitcoin's validation, and its PoW. It's worse than 51% of miners\ndeciding to rewrite history.\n\n\n\n\n-------------- next part --------------\nA non-text attachment was scrubbed...\nName: signature.asc\nType: application/pgp-signature\nSize: 555 bytes\nDesc: OpenPGP digital signature\nURL: \u003chttp://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20140501/cba8ecc6/attachment.sig\u003e",
"sig": "e09f581a74d6a07160cadb9e507f5cdb46bbfbfc7d3a14246ce3c2fd062d980d5c94c3c3ca0f380b9bbbce23ba94132e673348aafd6a8f9516eac2100f1e3517"
}