Kenshiro [] [ARCHIVE] on Nostr: 📅 Original date posted:2019-07-31 📝 Original message:>>> How would a ...

📅 Original date posted:2019-07-31
📝 Original message:>>> How would a (potentially, state-sponsored) netsplit lasting longer than N be
handled?

It would be detected by the community much before reaching the reorg limit of N blocks (it's 24 hours) so nodes could stop until the netsplit is fixed.

In the extreme case no one notice the network split during more than N blocks (24 hours) and there are 2 permanent forks longer than N, nodes from one branch could delete their local history so they would join the other branch.

Regards,


________________________________
From: Alistair Mann <al at pectw.net>
Sent: Wednesday, July 31, 2019 15:59
To: Kenshiro [] <tensiam at hotmail.com>; Bitcoin Protocol Discussion <bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org>
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Add a moving checkpoint to the Bitcoin protocol

On Wednesday 31 Jul 2019 12:28:58 Kenshiro [] via bitcoin-dev wrote:

> I would like to propose that a "moving checkpoint" is added to the Bitcoin
> protocol. It's a very simple rule already implemented in NXT coin:
>
> - A node will ignore any new block under nodeBlockHeight - N, so the
> blockchain becomes truly immutable after N blocks, even during a 51% attack
> which thanks to the moving checkpoint can't rewrite history older than the
> last N blocks.

How would a (potentially, state-sponsored) netsplit lasting longer than N be
handled?
--
Alistair Mann

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20190731/e2c2346a/attachment-0001.html>;