rich1.0npub1ac86vemj7ce5z8jyxt39rna3tvwql6xd30ha3vxcd6esysp23d9qrlswfjhttps://nostr.ae/npub1ac86vemj7ce5z8jyxt39rna3tvwql6xd30ha3vxcd6esysp23d9qrlswfjnjumphttps://nostr.ae📅 Original date posted:2013-05-15 📝 Original message:On Wed, May 15, 2013 at 07:19:06AM -0400, Peter Todd wrote: >Protocols aren't set in stone - any attacker that controls enough >hashing power to pose a 51% attack can simply demand that you use a >Bitcoin client modified [to facilitate evaluation of his policy] Protocol voting is a vote per user policy preference, not a CPU vote, which is the point. Current bitcoin protocol is vulnerable to hard to prove arbitrary policies being imposable by a quorum of > 50% miners. The blind commitment proposal fixes that, so even an 99% quorum cant easily impose policies, which leaves the weaker protocol vote attack as the remaining avenue of attack. That is a significant qualitative improvement. The feasibility of protocol voting attacks is an open question, but you might want to consider the seeming unstoppability of p2p protocols for a hint. Adam