Quote from: JackH on January 02, 2016, 11:30:28 PM

Quote from: brg444 on January 02, 2016, 11:27:22 PM

Quote from: JackH on January 02, 2016, 11:24:05 PM

User selectable cap means sybil attack. Again, nobody is answering my questions here.

What will BU do to stop my 2000 nodes acting to create the illusion of that the network wishes for very large blocks.

Actually, my Sybil attack can go something like this:

1) Vote for 1.5 MB blocks
2) Check how many nodes I have killed with the increase
3) Vote for 2MB blocks
4) Check how many nodes I have killed with the increase
X) Keep doing until I am the network of nodes. Fill up the blocks and start pushing out the Chinese miners as well.

Incremental Sybil attack, cheap and easy to pull off.

See my page 2 post for a detailed walk through of what you have in mind.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1312371.msg13430261#msg13430261

Yup, I noticed that one.

Quote from: brg444

The attack is a lot more complex than that. I think you're on the BU forum? Taek had a nice explanation of the centralization pressure enabled by BU. Someone could leverage a sybil attack to effectively do just what he proposed: slowly but surely prune nodes out of the network until it gets consolidated into a few more controllable hands.

Exactly! Too easy to pull off. So we are back to square one. Why choose BU when it cannot resist a simple Sybil attack.

The plan comes to an end very soon (perhaps at 2MB now) when you run into the actual limit imposed by transaction demand and the capabilities of the network - things which affect the bottom line of miners and to which the mining majority has strong incentive to pay attention.

At that point, you (and others who voted for an increase and got it) have established a new, better consensus for the users of the network. Congratulations, this is the point of BU.

Any excessive votes past that limit carries very little real-world import.