MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CAHUJnBAU2exMFgPTQx_+h_bktL3Z3B3rsh09aciVtRnGrHJBEw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAJRVQkDM390Y4sVzA8WwM93PY4UqUa8gvPKkT-iA2UcYL6FQ+g@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAHUJnBAU2exMFgPTQx_+h_bktL3Z3B3rsh09aciVtRnGrHJBEw@mail.gmail.com>
From: Bryan Bishop <kanzure@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 18 Jun 2018 15:51:33 -0500
Message-ID: <CABaSBayDe=92BFQXyX8oan4ptbOmQGHuAhEPjvq78MmazZFJ3g@mail.gmail.com>
To: Bram Cohen <bram@chia.net>, 
	Bitcoin Protocol Discussion <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>,
	Bryan Bishop <kanzure@gmail.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="00000000000022fa94056ef0bb61"
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Miner dilution attack on Bitcoin - is that
 something plausible?
Precedence: list

--00000000000022fa94056ef0bb61
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"

On Mon, Jun 18, 2018 at 3:40 PM, Bram Cohen via bitcoin-dev <
bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:

> Not sure what you're saying here. The block rate can't be particularly
> increased or decreased in the long run due to the work difficulty
> adjustment getting you roughly back where you started no matter what.
> Someone could DOS the system by producing empty blocks, sure, that's a
> central attack of what can happen when someone does a 51% attack with no
> special countermeasures other than everything that Bitcoin does at its
> core. An attacker or group of attackers could conspire to reduce block
> sizes in order to increase transaction fees, in fact they could do that
> with a miner activated soft fork. That appears both doable and given past
> things which have happened with transaction fees in the past potentially
> lucrative, particularly as block rewards fall in the future. Please don't
> tell the big mining pools about it.
>

Bram, actually I thought the previous discussions determined that less than
51% hashrate would be required for certain soft-hard-forks employing empty
blocks?

I don't have a specific reference:
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2016-February/012377.html
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2016-February/012457.html
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2016-December/013332.html

- Bryan
http://heybryan.org/
1 512 203 0507

--00000000000022fa94056ef0bb61
Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<div dir=3D"ltr"><div>On Mon, Jun 18, 2018 at 3:40 PM, Bram Cohen via bitco=
in-dev <span dir=3D"ltr">&lt;<a href=3D"mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfound=
ation.org" target=3D"_blank">bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org</a>&gt;<=
/span> wrote:<br></div><div class=3D"gmail_extra"><div class=3D"gmail_quote=
"><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:=
1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div dir=3D"ltr">Not sure what you&#39;re =
saying here. The block rate can&#39;t be particularly increased or decrease=
d in the long run due to the work difficulty adjustment getting you roughly=
 back where you started no matter what. Someone could DOS the system by pro=
ducing empty blocks, sure, that&#39;s a central attack of what can happen w=
hen someone does a 51% attack with no special countermeasures other than ev=
erything that Bitcoin does at its core. An attacker or group of attackers c=
ould conspire to reduce block sizes in order to increase transaction fees, =
in fact they could do that with a miner activated soft fork. That appears b=
oth doable and given past things which have happened with transaction fees =
in the past potentially lucrative, particularly as block rewards fall in th=
e future. Please don&#39;t tell the big mining pools about it.</div></block=
quote></div><span style=3D"font-size:small;background-color:rgb(255,255,255=
);text-decoration-style:initial;text-decoration-color:initial;float:none;di=
splay:inline"><div class=3D"gmail_extra"><span style=3D"font-size:small;bac=
kground-color:rgb(255,255,255);text-decoration-style:initial;text-decoratio=
n-color:initial;float:none;display:inline"><br></span></div>Bram, actually =
I thought the previous discussions determined that less than 51% hashrate w=
ould be required for certain soft-hard-forks employing empty blocks?</span>=
<br style=3D"font-size:small;text-decoration-style:initial;text-decoration-=
color:initial"><br style=3D"font-size:small;text-decoration-style:initial;t=
ext-decoration-color:initial"><span style=3D"font-size:small;background-col=
or:rgb(255,255,255);text-decoration-style:initial;text-decoration-color:ini=
tial;float:none;display:inline">I don&#39;t have a specific reference:</spa=
n><div style=3D"font-size:small;text-decoration-style:initial;text-decorati=
on-color:initial"><a href=3D"https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bi=
tcoin-dev/2016-February/012377.html">https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipe=
rmail/bitcoin-dev/2016-February/012377.html</a><br><a href=3D"https://lists=
.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2016-February/012457.html">https=
://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2016-February/012457.htm=
l</a><br><a href=3D"https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev=
/2016-December/013332.html">https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bit=
coin-dev/2016-December/013332.html</a><br></div><div class=3D"gmail_extra">=
<br></div><div class=3D"gmail_signature" data-smartmail=3D"gmail_signature"=
>- Bryan<br><a href=3D"http://heybryan.org/" target=3D"_blank">http://heybr=
yan.org/</a><br>1 512 203 0507</div>
</div></div>

--00000000000022fa94056ef0bb61--