On Fri, Jun 19, 2015 at 5:37 PM, Eric Lombrozo <elombr...@gmail.com> wrote: > The Bitcoin network was designed (or should be designed) with the requirement > that it can withstand deliberate double-spend attacks that can come from > anywhere at any time…
I disagree with this premise. Please, don't take this as an argument from authority fallacy, but I will cite Satoshi to express what I think the assumptions while using the system should be: "As long as a majority of CPU power is controlled by nodes that are not cooperating to attack the network, they'll generate the longest chain and outpace attackers." I can't say for sure what was meant by "attacking the network" in this context but I personally mean trying to rewrite valid and proof-of-work-timestamped history. Unconfirmed transactions are simply not part of history yet. Ordering unconfirmed transactions in a consensus compatible way without a universal clock is impossible, that's why we're using proof of work in the first place. Alternative policies are NOT attacks on the network. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ _______________________________________________ Bitcoin-development mailing list Bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development