[bitcoin-dev] BIP proposal: Increase block size limit to 2 megabytes

Peter Todd pete at petertodd.org
Sat Feb 6 22:22:21 UTC 2016

On Sat, Feb 06, 2016 at 10:37:30AM -0500, Gavin Andresen via bitcoin-dev wrote:
> 2) People are committing to spinning up thousands of supports-2mb-nodes
> during the grace period.

Why wouldn't an attacker be able to counter-sybil-attack that effort?

Who are these people?

On Sat, Feb 06, 2016 at 12:45:14PM -0500, Gavin Andresen via bitcoin-dev wrote:
> Would Blockstream be willing to help out by running a dozen or two extra
> full nodes?

I'll remind everyone that Bitcoin Core does not condone participation in
network attacks to push controversial protcol changes through. I also
checked with Adam Back, who confirmed Blockstream as a company shares
those views.

For those readers unfamiliar with Sybil attacks, basically what the
above does is prevents nodes from being able to finding peers with
accurate information about what blockchains exist - the above can be
used to prevent nodes from learning about the longest chain for
instance, or the existance of substantial support for a minority chain.
This is why we've advocated giving users sufficient time to actively
opt-in to protocol changes.

https://petertodd.org 'peter'[:-1]@petertodd.org
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 650 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20160206/7a096cda/attachment.sig>

More information about the bitcoin-dev mailing list