Author: Daniele Pinna 2016-12-11 03:17:45
Published on: 2016-12-11T03:17:45+00:00
The context of the conversation is about the difference between a plain old 51% attack and an adverse scenario. The writer believes that any proposed protocol change that allows 51% or more of the network to potentially game the rules and break the system should be considered unacceptable. They argue that there needs to be a point where basic honesty is assumed on behalf of participants benefiting from the system working properly and reliably. The writer questions if there is a line of code that prohibits all miners from turning their equipment off at the same time. The email also mentions the quote "As long as a majority of CPU power is controlled by nodes that are not cooperating to attack the network, they'll generate the longest chain and outpace attackers. The network itself requires minimal structure." The writer concludes by asking if there is such a thing as an unrecognizable 51% attack where the remaining 49% get dragged in against their will. The email response from Pieter Wuille discusses models for estimating the probability of orphaned blocks but notes that you can't control the topology and optimizing for minimal orphan rate could lead to a single conglomerate of pools producing all the blocks.
Updated on: 2023-06-11T20:52:30.616446+00:00