Very clever! SPV wallets can have real time data on this.https://twitter.com/SatoshiLite/status/949746681662205952 …
2/ That’s kinda like Antpool mining empty blocks, but doing it more consistently & on a much larger scale. If mining cartel can truly do this we have a bigger problem than fees: the miners have completely taken over the network & can impose artificial block limit on the users.
-
-
3/ 51 single-transaction blocks out of 100 means that the total available block space would be effectively cut in half.
-
4/ But the kicker is that the benefits of this manipulation (which again costs a lot of money) would go directly to the your mining competitors.
-
5/ Since the other 49 blocks would be mined by other miners, not you. You’ll be spending a lot of money just to line your competitors’s pockets and weaken your own cartel. Makes no sense.
-
6/ This attack, if carried out, can also be easily spotted on the blockchain.
-
7/ It also can be easily mitigated, as Charlie has pointed out, as long as SPV clients don’t use the same rule for estimating fee. Min feerate is only a fee signal, it’s up to each SPV client how to interpret it.https://twitter.com/SatoshiLite/status/949802676056834048 …
-
8/ In conclusion, I think this attack is unrealistic, easily spotted, and easily mitigated against.
-
I think it's unlikely, but not unrealistic. My main point was that I think the risk of this attack, or more clever variants, means that SPV clients would be better off using existing semi-centralized fee estimation services rather than the miner-curated minimum block fee info.
-
I would argue that it’s easier to manipulate these centralized fee estimation services than to manipulate min feerate consistently over X blocks- where X is a large number :-)
- 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.
