An attacker with some small hashpower isolates you (as an individual)
from the network by MITMing your network. You just switch the the
attackers chain as if nothing happened because of the network rule
that defines it as OK. Today, you will see that you're behind and warn
the user.
Was it really
Mark, thank you for a very clear explanation of why this proposal would be
dangerous.
What I have noted in many discussions regarding blockchain security and
proof-or-work schemes, is there is a wide gulf between those few people who
can clearly reason about it, and those who have a lot trouble
I think you misunderstood my statement. If time 3 days, and after 4
blocks have been mined, then difficulty would be reset.
In theory, one would have to isolate roughly one percent of the Bitcoin
network's hashing power to do so. Which would indicate an attack by a state
actor as opposed to
Ryan,
Why do you continue to try to correct people who clearly have put more
thought into this than you? Everyone understood you just fine, you just
seem to have trouble comprehending why your ideas are terrible.
On Mon, Dec 23, 2013 at 7:51 PM, Ryan Carboni ryan.jc...@gmail.com wrote:
I
It does take a state-level actor to apparently disconnect *multiple *miners
from the rest of the network.
How many Bitcoin miners hash an entire percent or more of the Bitcoin
network? What you're proposing is an attack at the highest levels of the
internet infrastructure.
On Mon, Dec 23, 2013
Ryan,
Maybe you could test out your ideas somewhere like bitcointalk.org and/or
provide some more technical substance before engaging with this forum.
Developers tend to prefer dealing with numbers known to be either 1 or 0, not a
variable set of possible values depending on non-technical
I think Bitcoin should have a sanity check: after three days if only four
blocks have been mined, difficulty should be adjusted downwards.
This might become important in the near future. I project a Bitcoin mining
bubble.
7 matches
Mail list logo
