Re: Where is the separate discussion devoted to possible Bitcoin weaknesses.
It doesn't have to be such a breaking change. New nodes could accept old transactions for a long time until most nodes have already upgraded before starting to refuse transactions without PoW. Or, they could always accept old transactions, but only a limited number per time period.
I've thought about PoW on transactions many times, but usually I end up thinking a 0.01 transaction fee is essentially similar and better. 0.01 is basically a proof of work, but not wasted. But if the problem is validating loads of transactions, then PoW could be checked faster.
A more general umbrella partial solution would be to implement the idea where an unlikely dropoff in blocks received is detected. Then an attacker would still need a substantial portion of the network's power to benefit from a DoS attack.
Quote from: gavinandresen on August 11, 2010, 04:10:56 PM
Bitcoin's p2p network is subject to various kinds of denial of service attacks.
There, I said it.
+1
Any demonstration tests at this point would only show what we already know, and divert dev time from strengthening the system to operational fire fighting.
Fonte: https://satoshi.nakamotoinstitute.org/posts/bitcointalk/344/
Satoshi Posts
npub1km…l6khs
2025-03-27 09:26:41
Author Public Key
npub1km3kxykvt4u4d8twn2mhhdfyd6z8e5kmkdtjc8rxqm0em0tunzjscl6khsPublished at
2025-03-27 09:26:41Event JSON
{
"id": "3558e9c0bb16956fe3788c77f3e2921e39238fda76ec2765e5128a75c8a1812c",
"pubkey": "b6e36312cc5d79569d6e9ab77bb5246e847cd2dbb3572c1c6606df9dbd7c98a5",
"created_at": 1743067601,
"kind": 1,
"tags": [],
"content": "Re: Where is the separate discussion devoted to possible Bitcoin weaknesses.\n\nIt doesn't have to be such a breaking change. New nodes could accept old transactions for a long time until most nodes have already upgraded before starting to refuse transactions without PoW. Or, they could always accept old transactions, but only a limited number per time period.\nI've thought about PoW on transactions many times, but usually I end up thinking a 0.01 transaction fee is essentially similar and better. 0.01 is basically a proof of work, but not wasted. But if the problem is validating loads of transactions, then PoW could be checked faster.\nA more general umbrella partial solution would be to implement the idea where an unlikely dropoff in blocks received is detected. Then an attacker would still need a substantial portion of the network's power to benefit from a DoS attack.\nQuote from: gavinandresen on August 11, 2010, 04:10:56 PM\nBitcoin's p2p network is subject to various kinds of denial of service attacks.\nThere, I said it.\n+1\nAny demonstration tests at this point would only show what we already know, and divert dev time from strengthening the system to operational fire fighting.\n\nFonte: https://satoshi.nakamotoinstitute.org/posts/bitcointalk/344/",
"sig": "2853ce8ddde2c31c3af9c3a283dd1c6d29d6c60fac6f9453d3c182f31a2d87d421e422d4b051ddd3180406d1ab12fff4776cb9544e5dc9ebd676a13e41827d53"
}