Quote from: smooth on February 09, 2016, 12:50:56 PM

Quote from: Come-from-Beyond on February 09, 2016, 12:45:16 PM

Quote from: smooth on February 09, 2016, 12:40:22 PM

You can collude to attack, but that would be visible.

It depends on number of colluding entities.

I didn't read that but the point is that you can't engage in an attack without creating forks, as monsterer said. The forks are visible. They would exceed those explainable by propagation delays, and would be selective against miners who include the banned transactions.

Are you blind?

Quote from: TPTB_need_war on February 09, 2016, 12:32:04 PM

Orphaned chains (not sustained forks!) are a natural and can't be proven to be an attack. Even those longer-con chains which orphan another chain which do not fall within the expected variance due to natural orphan rate can't be distinguished from natural (non-attack) network connectivity issues. Also I already explained upthread that an emphemeral fork (which orphans another chain) can't be blamed for a double-spend or censored transaction, because there is no provable correlation. Seems you've forgotten where I had to teach you in my Decentralized thread why it is impossible for a minority chain to prove anything (because the state of the chain is never absolute w.r.t. to any external chain/clock and is always moving forward). Which is the same analogous mistake enet made upthread.