From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org [172.17.192.35]) by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3FC0411DB for ; Tue, 8 Sep 2015 14:18:05 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from mout.perfora.net (mout.perfora.net [74.208.4.196]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id F25F8223 for ; Tue, 8 Sep 2015 14:18:04 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail-ig0-f173.google.com ([209.85.213.173]) by mrelay.perfora.net (mreueus001) with ESMTPSA (Nemesis) id 0MKaY5-1ZXw8y3tTz-0022z1 for ; Tue, 08 Sep 2015 16:18:03 +0200 Received: by igcpb10 with SMTP id pb10so79797435igc.1 for ; Tue, 08 Sep 2015 07:18:03 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.50.39.6 with SMTP id l6mr16099923igk.55.1441721883085; Tue, 08 Sep 2015 07:18:03 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.50.132.195 with HTTP; Tue, 8 Sep 2015 07:18:03 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: Date: Tue, 8 Sep 2015 15:18:03 +0100 Message-ID: From: Adam Back To: Washington Sanchez Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 X-Provags-ID: V03:K0:0DY0EnsLnUKZgmsgC92ZAesPJZj8EMO3SZLIDn9YcEXs2RIQidL 47RZesARCz7wmCCIToFzjaFyB0f7k0lLQARtai+I5JjZGBlbzyDdeL1fxkNpnkAU0nLxv/1 UmeAubjG5zk3IMbeNClD/fSmaAIbi/YqUXRx6QalUeuerMyQa7JWpc0+x3yt9GKyCQBoUZ7 naIZyf8WICdU104+K7/ow== X-UI-Out-Filterresults: notjunk:1;V01:K0:3C9R0hXQaVM=:FYx1NU7PpYZ6U8Qoh8sTTb CEL0s0XLPAMVw1kKj0Dc+5pq6PBpE5yLm1LM9jal+vm/fGSHVczk22V/fJKkNXh6K152R09/m bgZp6UvyZp/9kQKitP1O1H++c3RBp6jOa748Wvo9W6J+VouwRqPEVIv48CUemQPev5t6r/NvJ StvkqiEUeiLY/cahykMf4dX8KqmVuCqgP8fbJqiqDhpl5iLQP9ViV+A0mt2LCCeOMZMCY+J3F GAYq9OydSYvRCCpnG9/cNiCnABK7HEtbB/Nj4lKsU0NuI8FK4ZW3gVH0DisFWF8S3A/nhAkrM XOylyJbOVbppMnnsPgMGZYjLyKbnPD1DQJlrzuNVrvHLl3bMcPa7c2yyMTefUfbE0H2LAq+pj Cu/U7fhxqAMT/lDWEXzAhEExIvxXUvBLINGypSV9k5kbhCAvy7WkyElUG2nmmkqHk/DMrcQz3 WrWnATXQ6S8Vte7vpQEu00iKISSe7Lj9+bvFBk3iRNF24cofNaR/FLYH0G5VIWrmo+tk+L88h H7ElrgVLmptUMPjP/yp6yvrxN3dfrPOLnXXkH4xJmZNSxs3KAdvMCt9wpa7YkO3GK/43+YVuZ qZIOVwy+jObEmZi3n8mvZhfKpPvwRQH8pMSXVYgcBAmaMryHWJMguZKY3DjnSd1r2IXM6zUrs HIcSjQnjCcY//tDNfmboVySwfM74Hdl9VlHs5UHXDOT+yK+coN4rjm+MfaS25KtUNTMoaq9Ky wu07JqrnQuAT5N3j X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW autolearn=ham version=3.3.1 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on smtp1.linux-foundation.org Cc: Bitcoin Dev Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Dynamic limit to the block size - BIP draft discussion X-BeenThere: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Bitcoin Development Discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 08 Sep 2015 14:18:05 -0000 > A selfish mining attack would have to be performed for at least 2000 blocks over a period of 4 weeks in order to achieve a meager 10% increase in the block size. You seem to be analysing a different attack - I mean that if someone has enough hashrate to do a selfish mining attack, then setting up a system that has no means to reduce block-size risks that at a point where there is excess block-size they can use that free transaction space to amplify selfish mining instead of collecting transaction fees. Adam