It won't be framed as such though - there will be one group shouting "consensus is decided by nodes/users so it's OK to re-org using a snapshot" and another group shouting "Nakamoto consensus is king" plus a contentious fork.
-
-
the protocol needs hardening to make these thoughts actions even more implausible to contemplate, other than just common-sense of not destroying Bitcoin's having a meaning! ie technically, with more crypto fungibility, hidden or delayed coin linkage, ASICs that do not go backward
- 1 more reply
New conversation -
-
This Tweet is unavailable
-
-
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
I think this thread misses the most important point. If an entity can perform a sustained (month-long+) 51% attack then Bitcoin is broken. Is anyone but a state-level actor capable of doing so? Immutability has already gone out the window when the chain can be rewritten at will.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Oh come on dude, you know for all practical purposes that isn't the case.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
1/2 I know this is a stupid question that y'all have probably already thought of before and rejected for various reasons, but... earlier in the thread someone cited Satoshi as saying 6 block completions for a tx confirmation. For simplicity's sake, I'll say 8 blocks....
-
2/2 Current block reward for 8 blocks is 100 BTC. Would limiting the amount transferrable in a single tx to something like 8 block rewards achieve anything whatsoever? Or just force the attacker to cram all his double spending into one block?
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
Excellent Ulysses analogy. *Fist bump*
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.
