3 ms·
Is a "hard fork" really necessary? BTC miners can all just adopt a new version. What's concerning is that the 51% attack has been known since the beginning and
by logn 12y ago
Is a "hard fork" really necessary? BTC miners can all just adopt a new version. What's concerning is that the 51% attack has been known since the beginning and the community never addressed it and seemed to irrationally dismiss it. The current response is that GHash is removing processing power, but how is that a good long-term solution? The BTC community should be demanding and supporting technical fixes.
Also it's too bad that BTC is blinding everyone to a variety of other crypto-currencies that have improved features.
- meowface 12y agoThe so-called 51% problem will be inherent in any truly decentralized P2P network. All P2P protocols suffer the risk of poisoning by malicious nodes in various different ways, and they mitigate it by assuming that proportionally, most nodes will be good. There will not be a way of "patching" the issue. The only thing that can be done is to set up a proper emergency handling procedure in the event a 51% attack is conducted, which involves directing as many clients as possible to work on a new fork.