The least bad tradeoff is pure nakamoto consensus. Everything else devolves to cult-of-personality/politics. Allowing checkpoints at all opens a door that must remain closed.

If reorgs are a problem, the solution is for recipients to demand more confirmations. This is what exchanges do when shitcoins get 51% attacked. The more confirmations you require, the more expensive it is for your attacker to maintain their attack. Attacks can be made arbitrarily expensive simply by waiting.

So there’s already an in-built, PoW preserving mechanism for answering reorg attack shenanigans, without deferring to checkpoint politics: patience.

Reply to this note

Please Login to reply.

Discussion

It's a view. But Nakamoto himself was the one who introduced checkpoints to bitcoin. There's an easy principle to this, imho. Accept accidental reorgs, but reject deep reorgs that are intended as an attack.

> “Nakamoto himself…”

Argument by authority is unpersuasive.

Proof-of-Work consensus by difficulty retargeting (aka Nakamoto consensus) works both in theory and in practice. Other forms of consensus devolve to politics, both in theory and in practice.

Checkpointing is bad for Bitcoin irrespective of who recommends it.

👆this is written very well. Excellent and on point.

🙏