Quote from: tvbcof on January 21, 2015, 06:21:07 PM

I don't recall or never knew the precise details of lukedashjr's attacks. Mining zero-length blocks does shift the financial burden on an attack funder down to just covering the transaction fees, however, in the manner I alluded to in a prior post.

I would observe that if tainting is implemented at the mining layer, mining empty blocks would be an expedient way to assure compliance, and at the margins of profitability a little bit of added efficiency goes a long way. Not that there is much other than 'impurity' that precludes developments and adoptions which would dis-favor empty blocks though I'll admit. (So, if we see such efforts being focused on we might raise our eyebrows...)

I also observe that the mention of the NYSE and Singapore governments becoming involved in Bitcoin provokes a response in the community akin to the VE-day celebrations (here on the allies side of things.) Tainting would probably be a small price for the 'salvation' of mainstream involvement to most it seems, and there are plenty of people who are instinctively favorable toward existing societal norms and power structures. By all observations Gavin seems to be among these.

With respect to tainting, it seems that there are plenty of people including long-time and high level Bitcoin participants who favor it on it's stand-alone virtues. There are certainly some such virtues, but I see it as entirely unlikely that the effect would (or could) be 'stand-alone.'

-edit: likely --> unlikely

This isn't very clear so I won't comment.

Wrt to luke-jr's attack it wasn't this. He simply had the difficulty shoot up, and then left, leaving the altcoin issuing one block every X days, rendering it pretty much unusable.