5 ms·

>But it is not possible to freeze or confiscate those funds. That is just a limitation of the Bitcoin protocol. One could build a protocol where communities co

>But it is not possible to freeze or confiscate those funds. That is just a limitation of the Bitcoin protocol. One could build a protocol where communities could agree to freeze (not accept) or greatly devalue those funds.

maxerickson 11y ago
Miners could conspire to mostly freeze certain bitcoin. It wouldn't even have to be done in a way that was visible on the bitcoin network, they would just have to agree to not include transactions from whatever addresses. A strong majority could probably refuse to acknowledge blocks including the blocked addresses, which would be a real freeze (rather than the hassle freeze obtained by not including the address in blocks produced by the conspiracy).
- jsprogrammer 11y ago
  You'd need >50% of the miners to do that. It is precisely what I mean by building a protocol. Of course, without strong consensus (and a real algorithm/protocol) such attempts will likely just result in fractured blockchains (basically the state at the moment, with many competing implementations of the same basic idea).
  - csomar 11y ago
    Not really. you are talking about an attack. You'll need 100%, because if a single miner decided to include the transaction, then it is in!
    - bduerst 11y ago
      Only if that miner is successful for a block. Until then the blocked transaction stays in limbo.
    - maaku 11y ago
      You need only a cabal of >50% of the miners to agree to not build on any block that includes such a transaction.
    - jsprogrammer 11y ago
      An attack and a new protocol are the same thing. If a single miner includes the transaction, a majority can just bypass that sole miner. You do need 100% of something, but that something is just >50% of the miners.
maaku 11y ago
It is an explicit design choice of the bitcoin protocol (feature, not a bug) that doing so requires a cabal of the majority of the hash power. With properly distributed hash power like bitcoin had in its infancy, this would not have been possible.
deleted 11y ago
[deleted]

maxerickson 11y ago

Miners could conspire to mostly freeze certain bitcoin. It wouldn't even have to be done in a way that was visible on the bitcoin network, they would just have to agree to not include transactions from whatever addresses. A strong majority could probably refuse to acknowledge blocks including the blocked addresses, which would be a real freeze (rather than the hassle freeze obtained by not including the address in blocks produced by the conspiracy).

jsprogrammer 11y ago
You'd need >50% of the miners to do that. It is precisely what I mean by building a protocol. Of course, without strong consensus (and a real algorithm/protocol) such attempts will likely just result in fractured blockchains (basically the state at the moment, with many competing implementations of the same basic idea).
- csomar 11y ago
  Not really. you are talking about an attack. You'll need 100%, because if a single miner decided to include the transaction, then it is in!
  - bduerst 11y ago
    Only if that miner is successful for a block. Until then the blocked transaction stays in limbo.
  - maaku 11y ago
    You need only a cabal of >50% of the miners to agree to not build on any block that includes such a transaction.
  - jsprogrammer 11y ago
    An attack and a new protocol are the same thing. If a single miner includes the transaction, a majority can just bypass that sole miner. You do need 100% of something, but that something is just >50% of the miners.

maaku 11y ago

It is an explicit design choice of the bitcoin protocol (feature, not a bug) that doing so requires a cabal of the majority of the hash power. With properly distributed hash power like bitcoin had in its infancy, this would not have been possible.

deleted 11y ago

[deleted]