No need for any such consideration, this feature of refusing to interact/transact exists in all manners and shapes and it all comes from people forming a consensus/agreement to not transact or ignore certain funds/users or transactions. It doesn't matter what the agreement forms over, the point is, as he's made it again and again, that regardless of the protocol people can form agreements preceding any protocols, rules or stipulations.
You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
I beg to differ, such consideration is important to anyone who wants to invest or build a new blockchain. If specific types of chains are more prone to the abuse of "transaction refusal" or other attacks, then yes I think it's important to mention it even if the technical definition of such mechanism is the same on all types of chains.
You can't just add a DPOS and POW chains in the same bin when it comes to the potential risks such a mechanism could represent.
That "few of people" can be easily achieved on Steem than Bitcoin. That's my point. Think about it in terms of risk management for example.
The number of block producers that need to coordinate to refuse a transaction is about the same both for Steem and Bitcoin.
On Bitcoin 15 mining pools control 91.8% of the hashrate vs the 15 top witnesses positions in Steem that are needed for consensus.
So in terms of the number of actors that need to coordinate the risk is about equal...the difference is in the cost to carry out such an "attack".
the difference is in the cost to carry out such an "attack".I agree. Even 1 person, as long as you have the resources, in both chains.
Thank you,
Sun took over the Steem chain easy with just a few millions. Oen server to run everything.
I want to see him try the same thing on the Bitcoin chain.
Then will try to compare the costs
the distribution of coins is still better on Steem than BitcoinWhat do you mean exactly by distribution? people who are using the coin, people who are mining or getting or using the coin? those are different chains, and the consensus for transaction refusal is not reached in the same way even if the technicality of it (transaction refusal) is the same.
`considering that the trend is for ever increasing concentration of coins into fewer and fewer hands and the same for hash power``
Unless those people are using nuclear fusion and not seeling anything to cover the energy cost.
You are mixing Bitcoin (the coin) with the question of hash power and transaction refusal consensus.
people can cooperate to ignore transactions without any problems what so everA known fact.