|
61
|
Bitcoin / Development & Technical Discussion / Re: Any p2p exchanges
|
on: March 10, 2014, 03:22:32 AM
|
Wont't P2P exchanges bloat the blockchain even more?
Nope, CounterParty (XCP) P2P DEX currently uses multisig transactions as a means of escrow, with advent of Bitcoin 0.9 it will transition seamlessly to implementing OP_RETURN which can be pruned But it will still be put onto the blockchain, a full node would still need it. |
|
|
|
|
63
|
Bitcoin / Development & Technical Discussion / Re: some questions about 51% attack and hash power
|
on: March 08, 2014, 09:12:24 PM
|
|
There's nothing explicitly wrong with having 51% of the hashpower, you could use it to mine every block for the duration of your majority and that would be the end of it.
But, you could also use it to remine old blocks and mess with the transaction history and screw people over for the fun of it.
But at the most you'd have an advantage for just a little while, more miners would join and your majority would be removed.
|
|
|
|
|
64
|
Bitcoin / Development & Technical Discussion / Re: How would a node detect a reorganization/orphan of the blockchain?
|
on: March 08, 2014, 08:52:58 PM
|
A full node should be able to see every blockchain, sans the possibility of some MITM attacks.
What if the node is more like a 9/10ths node? If you don't download the full copy of the blockchain you're not considered a full node. In that case(you download just the block headers) you're susceptible to sybil attack by some entities controlling more than 50% of the hashpower feeding you the wrong chain. Is there any way to defend against a sybil attack if I don't download every transaction, I do have some transactions, but not all of them? How does a full node defend against an attacker with >50% of the hashpower? |
|
|
|
|
68
|
Bitcoin / Development & Technical Discussion / Re: When will nodes forward doublespends based on fee?
|
on: March 06, 2014, 02:07:51 PM
|
Nodes? why would they?
Miners— well maybe some already are. How could you tell?
In case you had a legitimate reason to change the destination of your coins. I just think there should be an official feature of the protocol that breaks trust in unconfirmed txs. Because if mining nodes don't already behave this way, they most certainly will eventually. Better to ween the network off 0 confs early rather than later. |
|
|
|
|
70
|
Bitcoin / Development & Technical Discussion / Re: When will nodes forward doublespends based on fee?
|
on: March 06, 2014, 06:15:05 AM
|
|
Miners should be viewed as profit driven entities.
They have a negative incentive to relay transactions, which means you can't depend on being peered with them to hear about transactions. A doublespend is as easy as sending one tx to the miner, and one to the merchant, the miner has no incentive to relay the transaction, so the merchant may never hear about it until it is in the blockchain, and they are out of a payment.
It is for this reason that it should be a standard to break trust in 0conf transactions, because eventually miners will stop relaying transactions so they alone are able to mine the fees.
|
|
|
|
|
71
|
Bitcoin / Development & Technical Discussion / When will nodes forward doublespends based on fee?
|
on: March 04, 2014, 06:59:59 PM
|
|
We need to move away from the mindset that zero confirmation transactions are safe.
Miners will eventually start to prioritize what to include by the fee it gives them, which is exactly what they should be doing. Even if that were to nullify another unconfirmed transaction, the one which gives the most to the network (miners) is the one that should be included.
|
|
|
|
|
79
|
Bitcoin / Development & Technical Discussion / Re: x^3+7=0 ?
|
on: September 04, 2013, 01:24:49 AM
|
|
It only becomes trivial to crack the equation when the same "random" number is used in subsequent transactions. Basically the same way they got into Sony's servers, it can, and has been executed on the Blockchain, a few months back some application was using the same random numbers in transactions and people were able to calculate the private key.
|
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
