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

Reply via email to