Show thread history

shortwavesurfer2009

1w ago

Less damaging for the users. With Bitcoin, colluders can filter out specific transactions and say, no, we're not going to allow those transactions. In Monero, they cannot do that. They can put through their own transactions, they can stop the rest of the network, or they can let the network continue as normal, but they cannot filter specific transactions.

See translation

1
0
0
0
0


Do you have thoughts?

Log in to leave a comment


Replies

npub129pux

@npub129pux

1w ago

Ok what about the opportunity cost for both?

See translation

0

0
0
0
0

shortwavesurfer2009

@shortwavesurfer2009

1w ago

really depends on what they're going for if they just want to completely shut down the networks then they would mine empty blocks and only collect the reward for mining the blocks which would be 0.6 Monero or 3.125 Bitcoin. They can't leave the Monero network running normally to collect fees since they can't filter transactions. But they could leave the Bitcoin network running and filter out specific transactions that they don't like and collect the fees for the transactions they allow plus the mining reward.

See translation

0

0
0
0
0

npub129pux

@npub129pux

1w ago

Don't you think such mining pools would go bankrupt? After all it's a pool, if reputation is damaged and folks join other more honest pools, then they are left with nothing.

Opportunity cost for the attackers is greater with bitcoin, as this is not pools that are attackers but certain clique of individuals and they do not make up all the pool.

Very nuanced this is; one can't extrapolate one way with such minimal analysis of attack verctors.

See translation

0

0
0
0
0

shortwavesurfer2009

@shortwavesurfer2009

1w ago

That's true. A mining pool is nothing but a collection of individuals. And if it was known that the pool was causing problems, the individuals would leave.

See translation

0

0
0
0
0