{"type":"rich","version":"1.0","author_name":"npub1lf5jdpupmcelz945y09tzawew6pqs5wkkp6dppeujgxxnqltgufsmzuul6","author_url":"https://nostr.ae/npub1lf5jdpupmcelz945y09tzawew6pqs5wkkp6dppeujgxxnqltgufsmzuul6","provider_name":"njump","provider_url":"https://nostr.ae","html":"📅 Original date posted:2016-12-11\n📝 Original message:\"You miss something obvious that makes this attack actually free of cost.\nNothing will \"cost them more in transaction fees\". A miner can create\nthousands of transactions paying to himself, and not broadcast them to\nthe network, but hold them and include them in the blocks he mines. The\nfees are collected by him because transactions are included in a block\nthat he mined and the left amount is in another wallet of the same\nperson. Repeat this continuously to fill blocks.\"\n\nThis is easily detectable as long as the network isn't heavily\npartitioned(which is an assumption we make today in order for transaction\npropagation to work reliably as well as for xThin and CompactBlocks to work\neffectively to reduce block transmission time).  Other miners would have an\nincentive to intentionally orphan blocks that contained a large number of\ntransactions that their nodes were unaware of.\n\nI don't think this sort of attack would last long.  Even later when\nsubsidies are drastically reduced, you would still lose out on significant\ngenuine fee revenue if your orphan rate increased even 10%(one out of ten\nof your poison blocks intentionally orphaned by another miner).\n\nOn Dec 11, 2016 11:12 AM, \"s7r via bitcoin-dev\" \u003c\nbitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org\u003e wrote:\n\n t. khan wrote:\n\u003e Miners 'gaming' the Block75 system -\n\u003e There is no financial incentive for miners to attempt to game the\n\u003e Block75 system. Even if it were attempted and assuming the goal was to\n\u003e create bigger blocks, the maximum possible increase would be 25% over\n\u003e the previous block size. And, that size would only last for two weeks\n\u003e before readjusting down. It would cost them more in transaction fees to\n\u003e stuff the network than they could ever make up. To game the system,\n\u003e they'd have to game it forever with no possibility of profit.\n\u003e\n\nThis is an incentive, if few miners agree to create a large conglomerate\nthat will ultimately control the network.\n\nYou miss something obvious that makes this attack actually free of cost.\nNothing will \"cost them more in transaction fees\". A miner can create\nthousands of transactions paying to himself, and not broadcast them to\nthe network, but hold them and include them in the blocks he mines. The\nfees are collected by him because transactions are included in a block\nthat he mined and the left amount is in another wallet of the same\nperson. Repeat this continuously to fill blocks.\n\n\n\u003e Blocks would get too big -\n\u003e Eventually, blocks would get too big, but only if bandwidth stopped\n\u003e increasing and the cost of disk space stopped decreasing. Otherwise, the\n\u003e incremental adjustments made by Block75 (especially in combination with\n\u003e SegWit) wouldn't break anyone's connection or result in significantly\n\u003e more orphaned blocks.\n\u003e\n\nTopology and bandwidth speed / hash rate of the network cannot be\ncontrolled - if we make assumptions about these it might have terrible\nconsequences.\n\nEven if we take in consideration that bandwidth will only grow and disk\nspace will only cost less (which is not something we can safely assume,\nby the way) the hard limit max. block size cannot grow to unlimited\nvalue (even if the growth happens over time). There is also a validation\ncost in time for each block, for the health of the network any node\nshould be able to download _and_ validate a block, before next block\ngets mined.\n\nYou said in another post that a permanent solution is preferred, rather\nthan kicking the can down the road. I fully agree, as well as many\nothers reading this list, but the permanent solution doesn't necessarily\nhave to be increasing the max block size dynamically.\n\nIf you think about it the other way around, dynamically growing the max\nblock size is also kicking the can down the road ... just without having\nto touch it and get dust on the boot ;)\n\n\n_______________________________________________\nbitcoin-dev mailing list\nbitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org\nhttps://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev\n-------------- next part --------------\nAn HTML attachment was scrubbed...\nURL: \u003chttp://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20161211/ba48b60f/attachment-0001.html\u003e"}