Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-3.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of petertodd.org
	designates 62.13.148.111 as permitted sender)
	client-ip=62.13.148.111; envelope-from=pete@petertodd.org;
	helo=outmail148111.authsmtp.net; 
Date: Fri, 8 May 2015 23:08:33 -0400
From: Peter Todd <pete@petertodd.org>
To: Tier Nolan <tier.nolan@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <20150509030833.GA28871@savin.petertodd.org>
References: <554BE0E1.5030001@bluematt.me>
	<CANEZrP3uKLvzKi-wXBJWL=pwqB+eAe3FbPjyESD52y5TGkg+Rg@mail.gmail.com>
	<20150508163701.GA27417@savin.petertodd.org>
	<CAE-z3OV8zyUyYiGNRZZbTkUZz70KK7P-ENyhsKe+yhZmNnqRuQ@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha256;
	protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="d6Gm4EdcadzBjdND"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <CAE-z3OV8zyUyYiGNRZZbTkUZz70KK7P-ENyhsKe+yhZmNnqRuQ@mail.gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15)
Cc: Bitcoin Dev <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>
Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] Block Size Increase Requirements
Precedence: list


--d6Gm4EdcadzBjdND
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

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@petertodd.org> wrote:
>=20
> > The soft-limit is there miners themselves produce smaller blocks; the
> > soft-limit does not prevent other miners from producing larger blocks.
> >
>=20
> 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 bui=
ld
> on them.  The reference client might even track the miner and the non-min=
er
> chain tip.
>=20
> Miners would refuse to build on 5MB blocks, but merchants and general use=
rs
> 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.

--=20
'peter'[:-1]@petertodd.org
000000000000000004bd67400df7577a30e6f509b6bd82633efeabe6395eb65a

--d6Gm4EdcadzBjdND
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc"
Content-Description: Digital signature

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
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==
=zVNS
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--d6Gm4EdcadzBjdND--