Pissing Assault / adversarial blocks assault

0
18


How do those of you accustomed to the protocol and sport principle recommend coping with potential ’empty block assaults’ (a majority of miners collaborate to decelerate Bitcoin transactions by producing empty blocks), or much more so, with ‘adversarial block assaults’ (a majority of miners collaborate to sabotage the community by sending blocks containing solely plenty of legit transactions), also referred to as ‘pissing assaults’?

Empty blocks are simpler to establish and do not include legitimate UTXO’s, so I suppose the protocol simply ‘skipping’ them would not do any harm (though, if it would not, why wasn’t that applied already?).

However adversarial blocks? Any acknowledgment that the nodes can merely establish and zap transactions that they don’t like would even be an acknowledgment that Bitcoin just isn’t censorship proof, and open up a wormhole of potential penalties, whereas very probably nonetheless not permitting to cease such assaults at an early sufficient stage to forestall lasting harm in belief and credibility (to not communicate of value/saved worth).

The chance for nation-state assaults remains to be comparatively low, however might need to be handled in some unspecified time in the future.



Supply hyperlink

Leave a reply