A possible attack vector for adaptive blocksize limit.

I don't know if this would work in reality, but hear me out.

Imagine I'm Mark Zuckerburg. I gather most to all of my partners with the Libra foundation, and i get help from the likes of Blockstream, nChain, Coingeek, Axa, Bilderberg, etc... So basically, I have an opposition force that can assist with funding.

Step 1: I start off my attack simple, and make it look like something other then what it is. I start accepting Bitcoin Cash and recognizing it as the primary medium of exchange on Facebook, i get most of my partners to start accepting it too. I pay for ads to convince people to buy and use Bitcoin Cash, and i get people saturated in it.

Step 2: I buy the most powerful node hardware and mining equipment available to me, and i start mining Bitcoin Cash, i also run a node or maybe a few. A few of my partners follow my lead.

Step 3: Using my millions if not billions in cash, i start spamming the blockchain from hundreds to thousands of different addresses. At first i make it seem as if it could be genuine adoption, and i pay cheap news articles to write the narratives for me.

Step 4: The blocksize limit automatically increases to be larger. I am resilient though, and the extra data does not encumber me. I spam the blockchain again, crashing other peoples nodes, orphaning blocks, and thereby centralizing the network. Repeat Step 3-4.

Step 5: In the space of only a few days to a few weeks, I've successfully eradicated most of the previous mining power, and now with the help of my cartel, have 51% control of the network.

Step 6: I fork the network, ensuring that my power does not recede even once i stop spamming the blockchain, and i gut Bitcoin Cash from the inside-out, and i turn it into Libra. I can now censor any transactions i like, i eliminate POW, i do whatever i want to it, and I'm now potentially the most powerful man in the world, and bitcoin is dead.

Concluding Question

Now here's the question. Is it possible to perform the aforementioned attack with an adaptive blocksize limit, via spamming the blockchain and ensuring that only the spammer can handle the large blocks, and be able to do it cheaper than a 51% attack?

If so, that's bad, and maybe we should reconsider something like BIP101 instead.

If not, then can you prove mathematically that its more expensive to do?

I simply do not have the numbers to know, as i don't have a clear enough idea how this adaptive blocksize is going to work in practice.

submitted by /u/cryptacritic17
[link] [comments]

from Bitcoin - The Internet of Money https://ift.tt/2YqROA7