Washington Sanchez [ARCHIVE] on Nostr: 📅 Original date posted:2015-09-08 📝 Original message:1) It's not really clear ...

📅 Original date posted:2015-09-08
📝 Original message:1) It's not really clear to me how that would work, but assuming it does
then it will go into a basket of attacks that are possible but unlikely due
to the economic disincentives to do so.

2) That said, is the Achilles heal of this proposal the lack of a mechanism
to lower the block size?

3) Let me put it another way, I've read that both Gavin and yourself are
favorable to a dynamic limit on the block size. In your view, what is
missing from this proposal, or what variables should be adjusted, to get
the rules to a place where you and other Core developers would seriously
consider it?

On Wed, Sep 9, 2015 at 12:18 AM, Adam Back <adam at cypherspace.org> wrote:

> > A selfish mining attack would have to be performed for at least 2000
> blocks over a period of 4 weeks in order to achieve a meager 10% increase
> in the block size.
>
> You seem to be analysing a different attack - I mean that if someone
> has enough hashrate to do a selfish mining attack, then setting up a
> system that has no means to reduce block-size risks that at a point
> where there is excess block-size they can use that free transaction
> space to amplify selfish mining instead of collecting transaction
> fees.
>
> Adam
>



--
-------------------------------------------
*Dr Washington Y. Sanchez <http://onename.com/drwasho>;*
Co-founder, OB1 <http://ob1.io>;
Core developer of OpenBazaar <https://openbazaar.org>;
@drwasho <https://twitter.com/drwasho>;
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20150909/e308be60/attachment.html>;