4 ms·

Thanks for your analysis. Even if this new equilibrium claimed by Eyal/Sirer doesn't hold up under scrutiny, haven't they at least succeeded in lowering the con

by sigil 13y ago

Thanks for your analysis. Even if this new equilibrium claimed by Eyal/Sirer doesn't hold up under scrutiny, haven't they at least succeeded in lowering the controlling percentage an individual would need to "cheat" the system in some way from 51% to 33%? In the ES paper, and in your responses, the assumption is a colluding group of miners. I find myself agreeing with you there; it looks like the colluders have more incentive to break ranks. But suppose a single individual controlled 33%. Couldn't they use this same strategy to benefit more than we previously thought they could?

deepblueocean 13y ago
> In the ES paper, and in your responses, the assumption is a colluding group of miners. I find myself agreeing with you there; it looks like the colluders have more incentive to break ranks. But suppose a single individual controlled 33%. Couldn't they use this same strategy to benefit more than we previously thought they could? Yes, I think they could. I'm currently trying to model what happens in mining pools where the pool master attempts to keep the pool's state a secret from the pool members to deter the kind of hopping behavior necessary for fair weather mining.