Re:Bitcoin blockchain issue - Mt Gox Bitcoin deposits tempor...
by saurik on Tuesday March 12, 2013 @02:38AM
(#5360581)
What if, rather than a client failing blocks that should succeed, a client is designed that accepts things (and generates things) that should fail, and yet becomes the most popular client among a very large subgroup (either by accident, or on purpose). I think that's the question being asked with regards to the "Asia, banks, etc." scenario.
Re:Bitcoin blockchain issue - Mt Gox Bitcoin deposits tempor...
by gizmo686 on Tuesday March 12, 2013 @07:12PM
(#5365644)
Those are equivelent scenerios. If client A generates and accepts coins that client B rejects, it is the same as client B regecting the same coins that client A accepts.
Re:Bitcoin blockchain issue - Mt Gox Bitcoin deposits tempor...
by saurik on Tuesday March 12, 2013 @09:48PM
(#5366296)
Yes: I understand that they are equivalent in the final problem, which is precisely why I went to the effort to try to make the formation more specific; the argument ewillbefull was making that it is highly unlikely for this kind of thing to be a problem due to probabilistic reasons doesn't apply when you setup the problem in reverse.
No, but the "transaction graph" which underlies both chains can (and will) be merged, in some sense.
> If [lots of people conspire] to revert to an earlier blockchain, it could drive instability.
The blockchain will only ever split inadvertently, or due to probability (the unlikelihood of multiple blocks being orphaned). A majority of miners would have to conspire to begin mining on a chain with less than 50% of the hashrate, which would be a waste of resources if the chain fails (which it will).
There's not just an incentive but a probabilistic force preventing forks from occurring.