Adam Back [ARCHIVE] on Nostr: 📅 Original date posted:2013-05-15 📝 Original message:On Wed, May 15, 2013 at ...
📅 Original date posted:2013-05-15
📝 Original message:On Wed, May 15, 2013 at 07:19:06AM -0400, Peter Todd wrote:
>Protocols aren't set in stone - any attacker that controls enough
>hashing power to pose a 51% attack can simply demand that you use a
>Bitcoin client modified [to facilitate evaluation of his policy]
Protocol voting is a vote per user policy preference, not a CPU vote, which
is the point. Current bitcoin protocol is vulnerable to hard to prove
arbitrary policies being imposable by a quorum of > 50% miners. The blind
commitment proposal fixes that, so even an 99% quorum cant easily impose
policies, which leaves the weaker protocol vote attack as the remaining
avenue of attack. That is a significant qualitative improvement.
The feasibility of protocol voting attacks is an open question, but you
might want to consider the seeming unstoppability of p2p protocols for a
hint.
Adam
📝 Original message:On Wed, May 15, 2013 at 07:19:06AM -0400, Peter Todd wrote:
>Protocols aren't set in stone - any attacker that controls enough
>hashing power to pose a 51% attack can simply demand that you use a
>Bitcoin client modified [to facilitate evaluation of his policy]
Protocol voting is a vote per user policy preference, not a CPU vote, which
is the point. Current bitcoin protocol is vulnerable to hard to prove
arbitrary policies being imposable by a quorum of > 50% miners. The blind
commitment proposal fixes that, so even an 99% quorum cant easily impose
policies, which leaves the weaker protocol vote attack as the remaining
avenue of attack. That is a significant qualitative improvement.
The feasibility of protocol voting attacks is an open question, but you
might want to consider the seeming unstoppability of p2p protocols for a
hint.
Adam