Subnostr

Attacks come in waves.

Let's think how we can defend the 2 pronged attack:

1. The "spam" attack can be made more expensive for the attacker by slowly increasing the block size. There are nuanced trade-offs to this, but I think the benefits outweigh the risks, rn. That's a longer conversation.

2. The psychological attack is harder one to beat off. Because that can get people on the inside and outside with specious arguments (as we saw in the summer). There is a simplistic defense to this, and that is: adversarial thinking. Verify dont trust. A spam bomb is assumed to be malicious until we can prove otherwise.

node 2y ago

Ya I don’t know about bigger blocks. Blocksize is just fine the way it is. No need for a change. Stability is key in layer 1

On your second point I do agree udi created a spam bomb

Reply to this note

Please Login to reply.

Discussion

Melvin Carvalho 2y ago

So the issue that someone with deep pockets can keep raising the fees to make the chain hard to use for the long tail. Long tail is like developers, people opening channels, casual users, L1/L2 interactions, and also the poorest people in the world.

It's an expensive attack, but not THAT expensive. For example if a nation state really wanted to annoy bitcoin they could do that. It wouldnt kill bitcoin, from many POVs it would be good, but it would hurt.

Larger blocks defend against this attack by making the cost more expensvie. Let's say I was paying 1 million per day before, I might be paying 1.1 million instead, or even 2 million, and on top of that they have to keep it up for long periods. Eventually they run out of money. Or better still, the cost is so high they dont try in the first place.

node 2y ago

I think the bitcoin timechain is working exactly as it’s supposed to. More traffic causes fees to rise. Free market in its purest form.

I don’t see udi’s ordinals as an attack. It’s just shitcoining on the chain