3 ms·
The "fair players" could simply coordinate to make a hard fork from before the attack.
by shawnz 6y ago
The "fair players" could simply coordinate to make a hard fork from before the attack.
- arcticbull 6y agoThey sure could, with the remaining 30% of the hash power. Thing is, continuously forking isn't a recipe for a store of value or currency or anything else.
- shawnz 6y agoYou are right that wouldn't make for a good store of value. But Bitcoin actually does not get attacked "continuously" so that is not an applicable criticism. It is conceivable that such a thing could happen but we can expect it to happen approximately never given the incentives in place.
- arcticbull 6y agoEconomic incentives sure, but if it becomes America's currency and it's mined by the Chinese, economic incentives no longer have primacy.
- shawnz 6y agoDon't they? Then what does? I just don't see what the benefit of conducting such an attack would be. Coinholders would practically not be impacted: they could just take their existing keys and bring them into the hard-forked software and continue like normal. Mining might be disrupted for a short time, but is that so harmful to the enemy to be worth spending millions in electricity?