New answers tagged

0

There's a distinction between verification and confirmation. Verification is checking that some data, such as transaction data, meets all the Bitcoin rules. For example you could check that the sum of outputs of a transaction does not exceed the sum of its inputs. You could check that none of the inputs have already been spent. You can check signatures. You ...


0

An attacker can perfectly choose to lose come money in an attack against other miners or wallet holders. You've forgotten a VERY important point: the attacker with lot of money has MORE time to support losses. It would be sufficient from the attacker to just bring someone out of the market. The attacker with enouhg mining power can accept to sacrifice a few ...


1

It can be argued that most aspects of bitcoin network like mining, wallets, exchanges are already controlled by centralized actors. US mining operations and big companies like Coinbase / Blockchain.com have disproportionately large influence over bitcoin. The important distinction here is that it may not be in the best economic interest of such centralized ...


0

assuming not a purely financial gain (this would be about control, ergo politics) Assuming that the value of coins will drop if the attack persists for long enough, then a majority attacker will incur a continuous and ongoing cost to attack (censor) the network. To maintain an attack indefinitely, the attacker would need to keep burning money (in the form ...


Top 50 recent answers are included