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 1362A175F for ; Sat, 19 Sep 2015 20:11:10 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from mail-wi0-f173.google.com (mail-wi0-f173.google.com [209.85.212.173]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 60749152 for ; Sat, 19 Sep 2015 20:11:09 +0000 (UTC) Received: by wicge5 with SMTP id ge5so70145144wic.0 for ; Sat, 19 Sep 2015 13:11:08 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=content-type:mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; bh=EPPBOM0pQr/NAn31lj5CO6FIhi7vXejNMNulaOsm89A=; b=Ltl739gOi4VgyLyM7XpaQAkO4gCJq0DIqq6uPE2Vv5X77GUPYHWhAcTQ3SKPs0y6rC Ymb+EI3+NqXGsKhujtR7uEC5OWiLfXiH7ewy3aIaoXmhPGUB9qd64Xx271BP+ia93pPK s1ZhpXtRyoLJ2Zeap3i+koMMP3BGlVTYXTAo0hPu9RAcMm72Pz5v6HtYwLr8426A7o3j ilVIeIgrjIUCnTT0EESbU28HbKKD5QC9RsTk2cVrvH8gOYR8Qv3AJqXrjjKiyS8SYfGa 4/I2Neay+FhF+lK/JWQkoNpd2y/M7xbgJyPRtT2A6AoOLaVbWm0iRCOHTCFG0Ht/CvU7 1Ygg== X-Received: by 10.180.12.195 with SMTP id a3mr4781525wic.71.1442693467846; Sat, 19 Sep 2015 13:11:07 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [192.168.1.31] ([212.60.121.11]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id pk7sm15558329wjb.2.2015.09.19.13.11.06 (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Sat, 19 Sep 2015 13:11:06 -0700 (PDT) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Mime-Version: 1.0 (1.0) From: "Rune K. Svendsen" X-Mailer: iPad Mail (12H321) In-Reply-To: <55FD990F.8060102@openbitcoinprivacyproject.org> Date: Sat, 19 Sep 2015 22:11:08 +0200 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: References: <5D55F6EC-801B-4607-882F-B76CF57298B1@gmail.com> <55FC6951.9010704@gmail.com> <55FCC8B5.9070906@openbitcoinprivacyproject.org> <4424FA4D-C84F-43DD-BA7F-BAC2D570A373@gmail.com> <55FD990F.8060102@openbitcoinprivacyproject.org> To: Justus Ranvier X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.7 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID, DKIM_VALID_AU, FREEMAIL_FROM, MIME_QP_LONG_LINE, 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@lists.linuxfoundation.org" Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Hash of UTXO set as consensus-critical 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: Sat, 19 Sep 2015 20:11:10 -0000 An honest miner is a miner that supports the network by building on top of t= he best valid chain. A malicious miner is one who wants to disrupt the Bitco= in network, not support it, for example by executing a 51% attack which mine= s empty blocks on top of the best chain. /Rune > Den 19/09/2015 kl. 19.19 skrev Justus Ranvier : >=20 >> On 19/09/15 10:45, Rune Kj=C3=A6r Svendsen wrote: >> We need to distinguish between two different things here: >>=20 >> 1) A 51% attack, where the majority of mining power is *malicious* (hence= =E2=80=9Cattack=E2=80=9D) >=20 > What does "malicious" mean? >=20 > In other words, If miner A is mining honestly, and miner B is mining > maliciously, what are some of the possible difference in their behaviour > we would observe? >=20 >=20 > --=20 > Justus Ranvier > Open Bitcoin Privacy Project > http://www.openbitcoinprivacyproject.org/ > justus@openbitcoinprivacyproject.org > E7AD 8215 8497 3673 6D9E 61C4 2A5F DA70 EAD9 E623 > <0xEAD9E623.asc>