@NickSzabo4 @adam3us @jony_levin otherwise each miner has to invest a lot to find that the way to route from china to eu s through Siberia
-
@starkness@TheBlueMatt@adam3us@jony_levin It's called computer science.
@starkness @TheBlueMatt @adam3us @jony_levin This all besides the fact that this network has blatant single points of attack/failure.
-
-
@starkness@TheBlueMatt@adam3us@jony_levin Is TTP awful only if we are trusting Mike instead of Matt? Is that really your story? -
.
@NickSzabo4 the topology of relayNet was chosen by miners@TheBlueMatt complained about that. tech is a point to point network compressor. -
.
@NickSzabo4@TheBlueMatt Bitcoin is an economic incentive system, miners will do what makes profit. relayNet clearly better than SPV mining -
cant unpublish relayNet & even if we could, makes Bitcoin security worse, because Miners may SPV mine instead. SPV mining caused 4 jul fork.
-
Bitcoin assumes a reliable broadcast channel efficient enough for negligible orphan rate from ratio of broadcast to block interval.
-
different channels over different physical links improve reliability of broadcast channel. reduces DoS, TCP hijack & router hack risk.
-
miners should also hide their broadcast network inputs, and use different block announce links, secure their routers, servers from attack.
-
that there is profit advantage motivating unvalidated mining shows network thruput / security tradeoff is already stressed & needs work.
- 2 more replies
New conversation -
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.