Quote from: TPTB_need_war on February 25, 2016, 07:52:40 AM

Quote from: jl777 on February 25, 2016, 07:51:08 AM

Quote from: TPTB_need_war on February 25, 2016, 07:46:38 AM

I don't want to repeat myself. You will destroy the security of the coin by enabling the hashrate attacker to steal other people's coins. This was not possible before (rather before an attacker could only attempt to double-spend his own coins), thus such an attack was not well funded. You are proposing to fund 51% attacks. I hope you understand that hashrate is rentable and the implications of that.

Sorry your proposal must be scrapped.

Stick with the CLTV on both block chains. That is sound.

I understand hashrate is rentable.

Please explain how a 1BTC value for atomic swap is financing a 51% attack. How many coins can be attacked with 1BTC of hashrate? and realistically how many blocks can be reorged

we are not talking about doing 100BTC swaps as the norm. Most will be 1BTC worth or less

James

Why do you assume only one DE transaction will be ongoing on a block chain simultaneously. And why do you assume that DE transactions will be limited to 1 BTC.

Just trying to calibrate things. If need be there can be a global tracking of pending trades relative to hashrates. And until there are much larger number of active trades, at any given time odds are that there wont be that many trades involving a specific coin. Even on high volume exchanges like btc38, often hours can go by without any trade for a specific coin.

Also, how can a PoS coin be attacked using this? Does this mean that PoS coins are more secure as atomic altcoins than PoW?

I dont want to start a holy war re PoS vs PoW, just trying to quantify risks. If indeed an attacker can spawn 100BTC worth of swaps, use funds to buy hashrate to reverse tx, then indeed this needs to be addressed. Tracking pending trades or limiting to PoS coins comes to mind, but I am tired and that is just the initial reaction, there should be more potential solutions

James