Pieter Wuille [ARCHIVE] on Nostr: 📅 Original date posted:2015-05-07 📝 Original message:On May 7, 2015 3:08 PM, ...

📅 Original date posted:2015-05-07
📝 Original message:On May 7, 2015 3:08 PM, "Roy Badami" <roy at gnomon.org.uk> wrote:
>
> On Thu, May 07, 2015 at 11:49:28PM +0200, Pieter Wuille wrote:
> > I would not modify my node if the change introduced a perpetual 100 BTC
> > subsidy per block, even if 99% of miners went along with it.
>
> Surely, in that scenario Bitcoin is dead. If the fork you prefer has
> only 1% of the hash power it is trivially vulnerably not just to a 51%
> attack but to a 501% attack, not to mention the fact that you'd only
> be getting one block every 16 hours.

Yes, indeed, Bitcoin would be dead if this actually happens. But that is
still where the power lies: before anyone (miners or others) would think
about trying such a change, they would need to convince people and be sure
they will effectively modify their code.

--
Pieter
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20150508/3ca17652/attachment.html>;