Quote from: monsterer on January 10, 2016, 08:32:52 PM

Quote from: TPTB_need_war on January 10, 2016, 08:29:18 PM

But the flaw remains that there is no way to prove what the union is. At any given time the honest chain has all the transactions from the attackers chain plus censored transactions, but then the attackers chain releases a new block with more new transactions. How do we prove which was first? That is the entire point of a longest chain rule is we have no way to prove relative order otherwise. This is what I wrote several posts before. You will just chase your tail in circles. It violates CAP.

First doesn't matter. Cumulative POW matters - if the attacker extends his chain by another block, thereby increasing his weight, if he is still censoring transactions, the minority can easily extend their own chain by including all the transactions he has, plus the ones he leaves out?

We can't prove when those chains were created relative to each other. That was the point in my very first post on this.

Someone could 100 years later create a chain and claim it existed at the time and was part of the union.

The only proof we have for the union is what the chains record. This is the entire reason we need LCR.

You envision a union, but you have no way to prove what the union is. Propagation is not proof. I made this point several times now.

The flaws require very deep thinking.

Edit: this is example of what I mean by it is easy to be fooled into thinking one has a solution. So many times I thought I was close to a solution then banged my head against CAP over and over.