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
_______________________________________________ bitcoin-dev mailing list bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
