Is there a contingency plan in the case that the incumbent chain following
the Bitcoin Core consensus rules comes under 51% attack?
If the 2x fork really does have the support of >66% of miners (which
remains to be seen), it seems like they'd have spare capacity to perform
such an attack. In
The problem of fast acting but non vulnerable difficulty adjustment algorithms
is interesting. I would certainly like to see this space further explored, and
even have some ideas myself.
However without commenting on the technical merits of this specific proposal, I
think it must be said
That is only a one-way peg, not a two-way.
In fact, that is exactly what drivechain does, if one chooses parameters
for the drivechain that make it impossible for any side-to-main transfer to
succeed.
One-way pegs have strong first-mover disadvantages.
Paul
On Oct 9, 2017 9:24 PM, "Tao Effect
Dear list,
In previous arguments over Drivechain (and Drivechain-like proposals) I
promised that better scaling proposals — that do not sacrifice Bitcoin's
security — would come along.
I planned to do a detailed writeup, but have decided to just send off this
email with what I have, because
Sorry, my previous email did not have the plain text I intended.
Background:
The bitcoin difficulty algorithm does not seem to be a good one. If there
is a fork due to miners seeking maximum profit without due regard to
security, users, and nodes, the "better" coin could end up being the
Background:
The bitcoin difficulty algorithm does not seem to be a good one. If there is a
fork due to miners seeking maximum profit without due regard to security,
users, and nodes, the "better" coin could end up being the minority chain. If
90% of hashrate is really going to at least
