An N block reorg on Bitcoin with more proof-of-work appears out of nowhere with a double spend. How big does N have to be before you choose not to accept the reorg?
-
-
Replying to @neha
if it’s a deeeeep reorg, then either a/ you alone have been partitioned off of the main network, in which case the choice to HF & reject the heaviest chain is kinda suicidal since the fork only affects you
2 replies 0 retweets 4 likes -
Replying to @hugohanoi @neha
or b/ a malicious entity has taken over majority hash rate- you can confirm this by checking with other miners. Once confirmed, coordinating on a hard fork is a temporary solution, with the caveat that if the HF still uses the same hash algo, solution might not be sustainable.
2 replies 0 retweets 3 likes -
Replying to @hugohanoi @neha
Regardless of whether you consider the entity malicious or not, forking (even if coordinated) is not an option. Doing so is conceding that the consensus mechanism has failed, and the new coin is unsound.
1 reply 0 retweets 4 likes -
Replying to @SGBarbour @neha
I'm inclined to agree. The point of having consensus codified in the protocol is that you can avoid stuff like this. Even if the fork works, it would set a precedent & reduce the value proposition of Bitcoin. Otoh, deep reorgs might also indicate a failed experiment... Catch-22.
2 replies 0 retweets 6 likes -
Yes, agreed w/ both of you. I actually see this attack (eg NK govt secretly invests in ASICs) as a major vuln of PoW/motivation for PoS.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @JaEsf @hugohanoi and
(Caveats: 1. "Major" ≠ "likely" (it's not) - just "one of the likeliest" 2. O/c no one's denying PoS has other risks; just not this one.)
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @JaEsf @hugohanoi and
In particular, the knowledge that this more-or-less-game-over attack is a remote possibility, will always hang over PoW chains.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @JaEsf @hugohanoi and
The PoS equivalent - buying a majority of stakers - can be reverted by social consensus, which disincentivizes it. See "spawn camping" etc
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
While I ack. that occurrences of deep reorgs is problematic for PoW, I disagree that PoS is safer in this regard
Let's face it: an entity who's able to overcome high stock cost barriers in PoW, will have zero problem achieving controlling stake in PoS.https://medium.com/@hugonguyen/work-is-timeless-stake-is-not-554c4450ce18 …
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.
