253 sats \ 2 replies \ @softglitter2d OP 9 May 2023 \ parent \ on: Bitcoin is not under attack of ordinals or BRC20 bitcoin
Would you consider the push for big blocks during the blocksize wars an attack on Bitcoin, or not?
I don't see any comparison between this post and the question but this is my answer: That was outrageous, that was a direct attack of the protocol. Mining mafia was trying to control the protocol via agreements between themselves, leaving other actors outside on purpose. Jonathan in his Blocksize wars explained with more details but to answer you main concern: do I conider an attack? Yes, because they filled the criteria number 5:
Integrity The attack must compromise the blockchain integrity, leaving the security under ashes
The 2017's NYA would compromise the protocol as it was explained here. I don't see the same behavior in the ordinal side but maybe I'm missing something.
write
preview
21 sats \ 1 reply \ @pillar 9 May 2023
Well, I was asking that because, as I understand your criteria, the big block stance wouldn't be an attack on Bitcoin. You mention you consider it because of criteria #5. To be honest, I don't think I fully grasp what you mean by "compromising the blockchain integrity" nor how did the big blockers threaten that.
reply
0 sats \ 0 replies \ @ek 10 May 2023
I don't think I fully grasp what you mean by "compromising the blockchain integrity" nor how did the big blockers threaten that.
big blocks -> blockchain grows faster -> more space required sooner -> higher costs to running a node -> less nodes -> more centralization -> less censorship resistant -> more potential for forks -> more potential for compromise of blockchain integrity
Ordinals or BRC20 do none of that. On the contrary: they contribute to the security budget
reply