<oembed><type>rich</type><version>1.0</version><author_name>npub138d0km3t8jujy9duwng26dh79fwuxqhw0xmxjdw2h2t2dgwzwpxsk9dl95</author_name><author_url>https://nostr.ae/npub138d0km3t8jujy9duwng26dh79fwuxqhw0xmxjdw2h2t2dgwzwpxsk9dl95</author_url><provider_name>njump</provider_name><provider_url>https://nostr.ae</provider_url><html>📅 Original date posted:2013-05-15&#xA;📝 Original message:I can&#39;t see this working, if 51% of the mining power doesn&#39;t like your&#xA;coins, when you create the commitment they will reject it.&#xA;If the commitment is opaque at the time of inclusion in the block then&#xA;I will create multiple commitments and then after revealing the&#xA;commitment and spend to you I will reveal the earlier commitment which&#xA;commits the coins to an address I control.&#xA;&#xA;On the topic of reversibility, I suspect in the long term the lack of&#xA;chargebacks will create issues as criminals learn that for the first&#xA;time in history, kidnap &amp; ransom is effective. Suffice to say after the&#xA;first &gt;= $10mn kidnapping-for-bitcoin heist, governments will be forced&#xA;to decide how they view the system. It will likely fall somewhere between&#xA;&#34;arrest/question anyone identified holding tainted coins&#34; to something&#xA;nonsensical and reactionary like &#34;blocking&#34; bitcoin as Iran does TOR.&#xA;&#xA;Thanks,&#xA;Caleb&#xA;&#xA;&#xA;&#xA;On 05/15/2013 07:49 AM, Adam Back wrote:&#xA;&gt; On Wed, May 15, 2013 at 07:19:06AM -0400, Peter Todd wrote:&#xA;&gt;&gt; Protocols aren&#39;t set in stone - any attacker that controls enough&#xA;&gt;&gt; hashing power to pose a 51% attack can simply demand that you use a&#xA;&gt;&gt; Bitcoin client modified [to facilitate evaluation of his policy]&#xA;&gt; &#xA;&gt; Protocol voting is a vote per user policy preference, not a CPU vote, which&#xA;&gt; is the point.  Current bitcoin protocol is vulnerable to hard to prove&#xA;&gt; arbitrary policies being imposable by a quorum of &gt; 50% miners.  The blind&#xA;&gt; commitment proposal fixes that, so even an 99% quorum cant easily impose&#xA;&gt; policies, which leaves the weaker protocol vote attack as the remaining&#xA;&gt; avenue of attack.  That is a significant qualitative improvement.&#xA;&gt; &#xA;&gt; The feasibility of protocol voting attacks is an open question, but you&#xA;&gt; might want to consider the seeming unstoppability of p2p protocols for a&#xA;&gt; hint.&#xA;&gt; &#xA;&gt; Adam&#xA;&gt; &#xA;&gt; ------------------------------------------------------------------------------&#xA;&gt; AlienVault Unified Security Management (USM) platform delivers complete&#xA;&gt; security visibility with the essential security capabilities. Easily and&#xA;&gt; efficiently configure, manage, and operate all of your security controls&#xA;&gt; from a single console and one unified framework. Download a free trial.&#xA;&gt; http://p.sf.net/sfu/alienvault_d2d&#xA;&gt; _______________________________________________&#xA;&gt; Bitcoin-development mailing list&#xA;&gt; Bitcoin-development at lists.sourceforge.net&#xA;&gt; https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development&#xA;&gt;</html></oembed>