On Fri, Apr 05, 2013 at 12:13:23PM +0200, Melvin Carvalho wrote: > Totally see the logic of this, and it makes sense. But I dont think the > only risk is in terms of double spend, but rather > > 1) vandalize the block chain which may be difficult to unwind?
Vandalize the chain how? By delibrately triggering bugs? (like the old OP_CHECKSIG abuse problem) Regardless of whether or not the vulnerability requires multiple blocks in a row, the underlying problem should be fixed. By putting illegal data into it? Fundementally we have no way to prevent people from doing that other than by making it expensive. An attacker having a lot of hashing power just means they can do so faster and a bit cheaper. -- 'peter'[:-1]@petertodd.org
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Minimize network downtime and maximize team effectiveness. Reduce network management and security costs.Learn how to hire the most talented Cisco Certified professionals. Visit the Employer Resources Portal http://www.cisco.com/web/learning/employer_resources/index.html
_______________________________________________ Bitcoin-development mailing list Bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development
