Bryan Bishop [ARCHIVE] on Nostr: 📅 Original date posted:2018-06-18 📝 Original message:On Mon, Jun 18, 2018 at ...

📅 Original date posted:2018-06-18
📝 Original message:On Mon, Jun 18, 2018 at 3:40 PM, Bram Cohen via bitcoin-dev <
bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:

> Not sure what you're saying here. The block rate can't be particularly
> increased or decreased in the long run due to the work difficulty
> adjustment getting you roughly back where you started no matter what.
> Someone could DOS the system by producing empty blocks, sure, that's a
> central attack of what can happen when someone does a 51% attack with no
> special countermeasures other than everything that Bitcoin does at its
> core. An attacker or group of attackers could conspire to reduce block
> sizes in order to increase transaction fees, in fact they could do that
> with a miner activated soft fork. That appears both doable and given past
> things which have happened with transaction fees in the past potentially
> lucrative, particularly as block rewards fall in the future. Please don't
> tell the big mining pools about it.
>

Bram, actually I thought the previous discussions determined that less than
51% hashrate would be required for certain soft-hard-forks employing empty
blocks?

I don't have a specific reference:
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2016-February/012377.html
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2016-February/012457.html
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2016-December/013332.html

- Bryan
http://heybryan.org/
1 512 203 0507
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20180618/dfdb18a4/attachment.html>;