@NickSzabo4 Unless specially protected with integrity protocols (e.g. https://) of course; then underneath can only delay & deny service.
-
-
Replying to @NickSzabo4
@NickSzabo4 But even delays and denials of service can mess with the integrity of some protocols (e.g. blockchains).1 reply 5 retweets 8 likes -
Replying to @NickSzabo4
@NickSzabo4 unless they are a super powerful like the permissionless block chain of Bitcoin.1 reply 1 retweet 1 like -
Replying to @MyTsonictsunami
@MyTsonictsunami No. Bitcoin is also vulnerable to this.1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
-
Replying to @MyTsonictsunami
@MyTsonictsunami Need more variety and redundancy in random gossip "broadcast" protocol, which may mean _smaller_ block sizes.1 reply 1 retweet 5 likes -
Replying to @NickSzabo4
@MyTsonictsunami OTOH reducing variety and redundancy by increasing the blocksize makes Bitcoin more vulnerable to this kind of attack.1 reply 2 retweets 2 likes -
-
Replying to @MyTsonictsunami
@MyTsonictsunami Sidechains don't address this problem.1 reply 1 retweet 2 likes -
Replying to @NickSzabo4
@NickSzabo4 smaller block size seems to be at odds with where core devs want to go.1 reply 0 retweets 1 like
@MyTsonictsunami Core devs representing over 90% of commits want block size increases to be slow for this and other good reasons.
-
-
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.