2/ To have long-dormant nodes or new nodes “ask their friends, block explorers or businesses” to find out which is the canonical chain in a *permission-less protocol* is unacceptable.
-
-
13/ However, it is only asymmetric from the point of view of the owner of the private key, and dependent on the fact that this key is forever kept secret. In other words, public-key cryptography security is *relative*.
Show this thread -
14/ You can defeat the asymmetry by somehow forcefully switching the roles: become the owner yourself.
Show this thread -
15/ The true cost analysis of attacking public-key cryptography must include social engineering attacks: kidnapping, extortion, torture. You can make attacking cost much lower than the cost of brute-forcing the key.
Show this thread -
16/ So anything that has asymmetric attack/defense ratio has to be relative. There’s always a way to go around the asymmetry.
Show this thread -
17/ PoW security, otoh, is *absolute*. It doesn't matter which frame of reference you come from, the cost of attack is the same. PoW ledger immutability is objective, it doesn’t care who you are.
Show this thread -
18/ Ledger immutability that relies on relative security will always be weaker than one that relies on absolute security.
Show this thread -
19/ EDIT (13): it is only *secure* from the point of view of the owner of the private key
Show this thread
End of conversation
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.
