From: Eric Voskuil <eric@voskuil•org>
To: Peter R <peter_r@gmx•com>,
Bitcoin Protocol Discussion
<bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation.org>
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Two altcoins and a 51% attack (was: Defending against empty or near empty blocks from malicious miner takeover?)
Date: Sat, 25 Mar 2017 20:00:51 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <4b56bb5d-f2e4-1c68-2f64-20d631c69ffd@voskuil.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <9C2A6867-470D-4336-8439-17F4E0CA4B17@gmx.com>
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA256
On 03/25/2017 01:28 PM, Peter R via bitcoin-dev wrote:
> In the case of the coming network upgrade to larger blocks, a
primary concern [...] is the possibility of a blockchain split and the
associated confusion, replay risk, etc.
> [...] a minority that does not want to abide by the [hard fork]
ruleset enforced by the majority could change the proof-of-work and
start a spin-off from the existing Bitcoin ledger [...]
The "spin off" to which you refer is an altcoin. The "network upgrade"
to which you refer is also an altcoin. Both are hard forks from
Bitcoin. I'm having a hard time imagining how a plan to create two new
altcoins from Bitcoin avoids either a split or confusion.
Application of hash power toward the disruption of Bitcoin presumes
participating miners are willing to accept a total loss on these
operations. I can imagine a significant portion of the hash power
deciding to let their competitors donate to "confusion reduction".
Eventually those thrifty miners will put the philanthropists out of
business. Maybe you can get Coinbase and Bitpay to finance the operation
.
This plan seems to be a response to the industry call for replay
protection. Actually writing the code is another option.
> once a super-majority of the network hash power has upgraded.
Despite the fact that nobody (miners included) has any way to measure
what software the economy (or hash power) is running, or what is the
economic weight of that portion of the economy.
e
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.22 (GNU/Linux)
iQEcBAEBCAAGBQJY1y7aAAoJEDzYwH8LXOFO9EMH/Aip84JpoYBM8/JIRpjq/wzp
VBU9rwMrVwaKdt8IzdJIhaD8FAiXYmXP6xM3eYk5Jp5g67uBnlrmXqlM/IfHI374
sKvN2nyHNqng9citI6ZeR+B3xJ7oFzycKf+KnvKi5JnPEMuTYwIw+dvXJGvZdjeH
WxW0g63KvfDPvYbYkE1hKnzUHWxGrR/Jrs898Cnwd0Z9OjrVNM3ZEix/IK4QrNRN
e/xLXjuIDHx6nzbddbVOSsuxBDo0GZUufGM4zTrGG+kNy4xFWsfwaXlM6kHmRqGF
73PDFWzbiur4B0CoBA7zd2C2ErypKZOoM35rsvwZq/a23OlxH6Jds7+6jTwN9lQ=
=0Bn2
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2017-03-26 3:00 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 22+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2017-03-24 16:03 [bitcoin-dev] Defending against empty or near empty blocks from malicious miner takeover? CANNON
2017-03-24 16:27 ` Emin Gün Sirer
2017-04-14 2:22 ` CANNON
2017-03-24 17:29 ` Nick ODell
2017-03-24 17:37 ` Hampus Sjöberg
2017-03-24 19:00 ` Aymeric Vitte
2017-03-25 16:12 ` CANNON
2017-03-25 20:28 ` Peter R
2017-03-26 2:38 ` Alex Morcos
2017-03-26 9:13 ` Chris Pacia
2017-03-26 11:27 ` Alex Morcos
2017-03-26 19:05 ` Peter R
2017-03-26 20:20 ` Alphonse Pace
2017-03-26 20:22 ` Bryan Bishop
2017-03-26 20:37 ` Trevin Hofmann
2017-03-26 20:44 ` Bryan Bishop
2017-03-26 21:12 ` Eric Voskuil
2017-03-26 21:42 ` Tom Harding
2017-03-26 22:15 ` Eric Voskuil
2017-03-27 10:25 ` Aymeric Vitte
2017-03-26 3:00 ` Eric Voskuil [this message]
2017-03-24 19:00 ` Aymeric Vitte
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=4b56bb5d-f2e4-1c68-2f64-20d631c69ffd@voskuil.org \
--to=eric@voskuil$(echo .)org \
--cc=bitcoin-dev@lists$(echo .)linuxfoundation.org \
--cc=peter_r@gmx$(echo .)com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox