On Fri, 5 Apr 2013 11:48:51 +0200, Mike Hearn wrote: > However, youre somewhat right in the sense that its a self-defeating > attack. If the pool owner went bad, he could pull it off once, but > the > act of doing so would leave a permanent record and many of the people > mining on his pool would leave. As he doesnt own the actual mining > hardware, he then wouldnt be able to do it again.
Unless all the miners are monitoring the work they do for their pools and the actual miners that found the blocks noticed (unlikely) - the only way anyone knows which pool did anything is the source IP that first disseminates the new block. Also since it's unlikely that both of the doublespend blocks would be found by the same end miner, neither of them would know that the pool operator was responsible even if they were monitoring their work. There's nothing stopping the pool owner from channeling the doublespend blocks through some other previously unknown IP, so I don't think they would suffer any reputational damage from doing this repeatidly. Robert ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Minimize network downtime and maximize team effectiveness. Reduce network management and security costs.Learn how to hire the most talented Cisco Certified professionals. Visit the Employer Resources Portal http://www.cisco.com/web/learning/employer_resources/index.html _______________________________________________ Bitcoin-development mailing list Bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development
