Quote from: smooth on February 09, 2016, 01:07:56 PM

Mempools only prove nothing if nodes are also conspiring

Are you still blind?

Quote from: TPTB_need_war on February 09, 2016, 01:05:46 PM

Here is what I taught monsterer before.

Here was some other discussion that linked back to that:

Quote from: TPTB_need_war on January 21, 2016, 02:01:11 AM

As I explained to monsterer upthread, it is not possible to objectively prove (with cryptography and math) which chain is the honest one and which one is the dishonest one when there are censored transactions.

[...]

Note however that this minority chain is unprovable to a full node that wasn't online as it was occurring (which was my point to monsterer)...

Quote from: TPTB_need_war on February 09, 2016, 12:52:54 PM

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.

How many times do I have to say that ephemeral forks are not an indication of an attack. And proving correctness of block chain state between ephemeral forks is impossible. The longest chain rule wins. Period! Damn it!