Hi Akiva
I sketched out a similar proposal here:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1083345.0
It's good to see people talking about this :). I'm not quite convinced with
segregated witness, as it might mess up some things, but will take a closer
look.
On Dec 9, 2015 7:32 AM, "Loi Luu via
Hi
Is there a worked out scriptPubKey for doing multisig with just hashes
of the participants? I think it is doable and it is more secure to a
compromised ECDSA. I'm thinking something like this for the
scriptPubKey:
2 OP_SWAP OP_SWAP OP_SWAP OP_DUP OP_HASH160
OP_EQUALVERIFY OP_DUP OP_HASH160
As I understand, selfish mining is an attack where miners collude to
mine at a lower hashrate then with all miners working independently.
What are the current strategies used to prevent this and what are the
future plans?
One idea I have is to let the block reward get "modulated" according
to
@ Eric: Yes I forgot to mention that cost (in addition to price) also
determines the profitability of mining and thus the total hashpower. I
disagree with your assessment of merge mining as really what matters
is opportunity cost of honestly mining vs attacking, and one reason we
are currently
lock by including the
> suggested transactions and giving the associated transaction fees to a
> payment address specified in the Helper Block. Miners who do not use a
> Helper Block must satisfy a 25% higher difficulty.
>
> On Fri, Sep 14, 2018 at 9:56 AM Andrew via bitcoin-dev
>
> From: bitcoin-dev-boun...@lists.linuxfoundation.org
> on behalf of Andrew via
> bitcoin-dev
> Sent: Friday, 14 September 2018 9:19:37 AM
> To: Bitcoin Dev
> Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Selfish Mining Prevention
>
> I discussed this more at bitcointalk:
> https
I discussed this more at bitcointalk:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=4998410.0
The attacks I'm interested in preventing are not only selfish mining
and collusion, but also more subtle attacks like block withholding,
and in general anything that aims to drive out the competition in
order
> I see what you say, however, since the proposal as I have read it says "And
> this will keep happening as long as hashrate keeps rising," - what actually
> happens in the case hashrate stagnates or falls?
In general, a target hashrate can be set by users (can be less or more
than the peak
