MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CAG0bcYzBCsg9xNLGmu4S=PEPjtbd2iBLH52ryswbkRM23OqquA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAG0bcYzzg4yeQvd27PZu5Fqv1ULS3cKeQHaRZ2zPcM3OASw1cg@mail.gmail.com>
	<CADJgMztJx1cBFhNOwMgBHJGPmBNPqsTdQbCCjFBmDBSBfTMMUg@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAAre=yRawFU_WMdE+ReemscYD33ez1PF6VhU2FmWo2fAEcw_Xw@mail.gmail.com>
	<CALqxMTERUFEFgJ4quz2dWLRw9fD3DkBp-6RO4cuvdBGV2MSyhw@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAG0bcYzBCsg9xNLGmu4S=PEPjtbd2iBLH52ryswbkRM23OqquA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 8 Sep 2015 15:18:03 +0100
Message-ID: <CALqxMTFQhFusR5jkEMvRdxDVLZPzWSW5hUHpXoON-K-+xJjpNA@mail.gmail.com>
From: Adam Back <adam@cypherspace.org>
To: Washington Sanchez <washington.sanchez@gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Cc: Bitcoin Dev <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Dynamic limit to the block size - BIP draft
	discussion
Precedence: list

> A selfish mining attack would have to be performed for at least 2000 blocks over a period of 4 weeks in order to achieve a meager 10% increase in the block size.

You seem to be analysing a different attack - I mean that if someone
has enough hashrate to do a selfish mining attack, then setting up a
system that has no means to reduce block-size risks that at a point
where there is excess block-size they can use that free transaction
space to amplify selfish mining instead of collecting transaction
fees.

Adam