Re: [bitcoin-dev] We need to fix the block withholding attack

Treating the pool block withholding attack as a weapon has bad connotations, and I don't think anyone directly condones such an attack. Nevertheless, the mere possibility of the attack could drive miners away from those overly-large open pools. As for masquerading as multiple small pools -- that's

Re: [bitcoin-dev] Bitcoin-NG whitepaper.

On Tue, Oct 27, 2015 at 10:08 PM, Matt Corallo wrote: > Oops, just realized I never responded to this... > > On 10/15/15 15:09, Ittay wrote: > > Thanks, Matt. Response inline. > > > > On Wed, Oct 14, 2015 at 2:57 PM, Matt Corallo > > wrote: > > > > That conve

Re: [bitcoin-dev] Bitcoin-NG whitepaper.

Hi Odinn, I guess to answer we should separate pure-NG from the hypothetical overlay-NG that runs on top of Bitcoin. For pure NG one still has to set a transaction bandwidth limit due to bandwidth and storage limitations of the individual clients. This rate can be arbitrarily high with NG without

Re: [bitcoin-dev] Bitcoin-NG whitepaper.

This is a good point, it is correct, and the tweak is dangerous. Do you perceive this as a significant practical issue? > > On October 14, 2015 11:28:51 AM PDT, Ittay via bitcoin-dev < > bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote: > >> >> On Wed, Oct 14, 2015 at 2:

Re: [bitcoin-dev] Bitcoin-NG whitepaper.

On Wed, Oct 14, 2015 at 2:20 PM, Bob McElrath wrote: > So it seems to me that all I need to do is figure out who the current > leader is, > and DDoS him off the network to shut Bitcoin-NG down. > > This is a significant advantage to bitcoin's ex-post-facto blocks: no one > knows > where the next

Re: [bitcoin-dev] Bitcoin-NG whitepaper.

On Wed, Oct 14, 2015 at 2:12 PM, Bryan Bishop wrote: > On Wed, Oct 14, 2015 at 1:02 PM, Emin Gün Sirer > wrote: > > while the whitepaper has all the nitty gritty details: > > http://arxiv.org/abs/1510.02037 > > Taking reward compensation back by fraud proofs is not enough to fix > the probl