you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]Peter__RPeter Rizun - Bitcoin Researcher & Editor of Ledger Journal[S] 17 points18 points  (21 children)

Is this really an attack? I think it's only an attack if the minority chain has value, but if the minority chain dies quickly (or never exists in the first place) then what value was really there?

My new thinking on this matter is that it's part of a safe upgrade procedure to minimize the chance of a blockchain split (which seems to be a primary concern of small blockers and big blockers).

[–]timateoi 5 points6 points  (14 children)

I totally agree, but where do I donate?! :)

/u/HelloBitcoinWorld used to be up for this sort of thing.

Seriously, I think it still needs a name though. If you aren't going to call it a 51% attack, what should we call it. We need to be able to refer to it as something other than a 51% attack in order to engage in arguments about it.

If Core goes all the way to trying to change POW it is going to be so incredibly satisfying to watch. I up vote every post about it on r/Bitcoin trying to help it gain traction.

[–]Adrian-X 6 points7 points  (0 children)

It already has a name it's called the upgrade.

[–]toduModerator 5 points6 points  (10 children)

A spontaneous suggestion is "a 51 % protocol rule enforcement" but that's perhaps a bit too long.

[–]timateoi 5 points6 points  (9 children)

51% Enforcement is kind of catchy, or maybe just Protocol Enforcement, PE for short

[–]AmIHigh 1 point2 points  (0 children)

We'll if the idea is for it to be in part replay protection, 51% replay protection?

[–]Shibinator 1 point2 points  (6 children)

Any phrase involving the word "enforcement" I don't want anywhere near my libertarian free market voluntary Bitcoin thank you very much.

[–]timateoi 0 points1 point  (5 children)

So are you against the idea of suppressing the minority chain in principal? If not, do you have a better phrase for it?

[–]Shibinator 5 points6 points  (4 children)

Absolutely I'm against the idea of suppressing the minority chain.

I think the minority chain will be quickly killed off naturally by the market. But I'm NOT the market so I can't say for sure. The minority chain should definitely be left to fend for itself and maybe it will surprise us all, I doubt it but who knows.

Actively trying to shoot it down though is the absolute antithesis of Bitcoin's founding principles of uncoercive decision making and free market competition.

[–]ForkiusMaximus 2 points3 points  (2 children)

I agree with the principle, but arguably two chains trying to survive with the same PoW is inherently an adversarial situation. If the minority manages to make comeback, it could attack the current majority chain. Prudence really requires one side to change the PoW to remain safe, and while it would be mighty generous of the majority side to volunteer to be the one to change, it's obviously not going to happen that way. Thus if the minority refuses to take the prudent action, they are threatening the majority's very existence and should be stopped with all necessary measures.

[–]Shibinator 0 points1 point  (0 children)

but arguably two chains trying to survive with the same PoW is inherently an adversarial situation.

That's perfect, that's called free market competition. That's not a problem, that's a good thing.

If the minority manages to make comeback, it could attack the current majority chain.

If the minority makes a comeback, then that means the market has changed its mind because the minority chain is doing something right that the majority chain isn't. That's a valuable lesson for everyone on both sides of the fork.

Prudence really requires one side to change the PoW to remain safe

Which should initially be the minority chain, but if they want to go head to head in the market against the majority chain absolutely let them do that and don't interfere.

Thus if the minority refuses to take the prudent action, they are threatening the majority's very existence

No they're not, any "comeback and attack" is ludicrously hypothetical. Does every person you walk past on the street who has a kitchen knife in their house "threaten your very existence"? IN THEORY they could go home and get it and then find you and stab you, but there's no point worrying about that very unlikely scenario until its several steps closer to actually occurring.

If the minority chain started gaining back hashrate that would be the sign to the majority chain not to attack them, but to make some adjustments to their market strategy.

and should be stopped with all necessary measures.

The market should be the only necessary measure, and if that's not enough then the majority chain needs to figure out additional ways to outcompete the minority chain - not resort to aggressive attacks.

[–]Richy_T 0 points1 point  (0 children)

If the minority chain can somehow make a comeback, perhaps it deserves to make a comeback? If we believe we're right (and I do), we don't really need to go around suppressing the actions of others. I, personally, do not want to stand with Luke-jr ideologically.

Though I believe it won't come to that anyway.

[–]Shock_The_Stream 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I feel the same. Libertarians cannot reunify with the totalitarians, censors, vandals and inquisitors. They should get their own Blockchain.

[–]Taidiji 1 point2 points  (0 children)

More like premature ejaculation. Your delusional bunch is toast.

[–]ViperfishAU 1 point2 points  (0 children)

What do you call it when you have to put down the family dog that's so old and crippled it can't walk any more? That's what we call this :)

[–]steb2k 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Chain split removal mechanism

Safe hard fork

No split fork.

No split protocol upgrade

?

[–]timateoi 4 points5 points  (0 children)

You don't have to name names, but are you aware of any miners making serious plans for "the upgrade"? ;)

EDIT: for the Protocol Enforcement?

[–]Drakaryis 1 point2 points  (0 children)

*[Level 2] Anti-split protection *— Miners will orphan the blocks of non-compliant miners prior to the first larger block to serve as a reminder to upgrade. Simply due to the possibility of having blocks orphaned, all miners would be motivated to begin signalling for larger blocks once support definitively passes 51%. If some miners hold out (e.g., they may not be paying attention regarding the upgrade), then they will begin to pay attention after losing approximately $15,000 of revenue due to an orphaned block.

Here you are proposing for BU-signalling miners to orphan blocks of miners not signalling BU before the fork to coerce them to swith to BU - or as you put it "as an expensive reminder to upgrade".

Do you realize that the easier way to prevent such an attack is for all miners to signal for BU, thus avoiding to have their blocks orphaned, to then defect from BU and switch to the original chain as soon as the fork happens, right? What you propose is in fact creating the incentives for false signalling, de-facto harming the hard-fork viability and creating a huge risk for all the ecosystem.

/u/Peter_R, we have a long story together on Bitcointalk (I have a different nick there), we used to always agree back in 2013 and we "worked" a lot together doing analysis for Just-Dice. Remember Nakowa? :) I appreciate you but I have to say you are not thinking clearly here.

[–]Linqs 1 point2 points  (2 children)

I see a lot of core devs and proponents criticize the fact that there is no grace period for activation of bigger blocks. (To me it seems necessary if you want to make the hardfork with minimal risks to lagging actors.) Whats your take on that?

[–]Peter__RPeter Rizun - Bitcoin Researcher & Editor of Ledger Journal[S] 0 points1 point  (1 child)

There will be a grace period. See my article.

[–]Linqs 0 points1 point  (0 children)

You had a link to a ViaBTC blog saying that the grace period should be 1 difficulty adjustment period after 75% unlimited hashpower is reached, then my followup question is: then why isnt the grace period defined in the BU code such that you dont relay bigger blocks until 75% miner concensus and a grace period of 1 diffucult adjustment is reached?

[–]sanket1729 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Why is this different from empty mining an ant-coin? Is it good justification to destroy all other kingdoms in order to unify this world?