rich1.0npub1m230cem2yh3mtdzkg32qhj73uytgkyg5ylxsu083n3tpjnajxx4qqa2np2https://nostr.ae/npub1m230cem2yh3mtdzkg32qhj73uytgkyg5ylxsu083n3tpjnajxx4qqa2np2njumphttps://nostr.ae📅 Original date posted:2015-05-09 📝 Original message:On Fri, May 08, 2015 at 08:47:52PM +0100, Tier Nolan wrote: > On Fri, May 8, 2015 at 5:37 PM, Peter Todd <pete at petertodd.org> wrote: > > > The soft-limit is there miners themselves produce smaller blocks; the > > soft-limit does not prevent other miners from producing larger blocks. > > > > I wonder if having a "miner" flag would be good for the network. Makes it trivial to find miners and DoS attack them - a huge risk to the network as a whole, as well as the miners. Right now pools already get DoSed all the time through their work submission systems; getting DoS attacked via their nodes as well would be a disaster. > When in "miner mode", the client would reject 4MB blocks and wouldn't build > on them. The reference client might even track the miner and the non-miner > chain tip. > > Miners would refuse to build on 5MB blocks, but merchants and general users > would accept them. That'd be an excellent way to double-spend merchants, significantly increasing the chance that the double-spend would succeed as you only have to get sufficient hashing power to get the lucky blocks; you don't need enough hashing power to *also* ensure those blocks don't become the longest chain, removing the need to sybil attack your target. -- 'peter'[:-1]@petertodd.org 000000000000000004bd67400df7577a30e6f509b6bd82633efeabe6395eb65a -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 650 bytes Desc: Digital signature URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20150508/b01ee01a/attachment.sig>