[Bitcoin-ml] Partial UTXO tree as commitment

Chris Pacia ctpacia at gmail.com
Wed Sep 6 21:51:38 UTC 2017

On 09/06/2017 02:54 PM, Tomas via bitcoin-ml wrote:
> This is certainly costly, though rare. And it would even be possible
> for it to flip flop back. I think it will we acceptable (ECMH itself
> claims 4 million hashes/sec on modern hardware), but we'll have to
> carefully look at benches to see if this is viable.

You'd need to consider the impact on selfish mining. Seems like if there
could be something to game there by creating a block that increases the
buckets then creating the next one that decreases it, etc. Maybe mining
on the header would mitigate that and let the chain move forward but it
seems worth analyzing.

More information about the bitcoin-ml mailing list