[Bitcoin-ml] Partial UTXO tree as commitment

Tomas tomas at bitcrust.org
Thu Sep 7 07:30:14 UTC 2017


On Wed, Sep 6, 2017, at 23:51, Chris Pacia via bitcoin-ml wrote:
> 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.


Yes. Good point. It may be better not to allow shrinking. That is, to
enforce that the bucketcount is always at least the bucketcount of the
previous block.


More information about the bitcoin-ml mailing list