Quote from: ArticMine on June 22, 2016, 01:23:38 AM

Quote from: iamnotback on June 22, 2016, 12:04:26 AM

...

There is a huge difference between forking the protocol with 51% hashrate and adhering to the protocol with 100X hashrate (both being ways to set a stratospheric difficulty level).

In the former case, honest miners will ignore the fork. In the latter case, they can't do anything.

ArticMine you are a physicist and I am a programmer for 37 years. I will be more skilled at my field and you will be more expert at yours.

The attacker in the 51% case is mining otherwise perfectly valid blocks but at a higher attack difficulty rather than the correct optimal difficulty in the blocks. There is no actual change in the protocol. The trade-off is that the 51% attack blocks could be easily detected by the network in exchange for a much lower cost of attack. In either case once the attack ends the difficulty starts to fall since time ticks by with no blocks being mined. There is a key difference between Bitcoin or a Bitcoin clone and Monero in that in Bitcoin the difficulty adjustment is discrete approximately every 2 weeks while in Monero it is continuous, This means that by timing the end of the attack correctly the attacker could keep the difficulty constant in Bitcoin for 2 weeks, while in Monero the difficulty starts to fall approximately 2 min after the end of the attack.

This is gibberish. It reads like you are drunk.

Yes a 51% attacker is mining valid blocks so when he stops mining, the difficulty is not very high, so that is not the same as attacking the network with 1000X the hashrate and driving the difficulty skyhigh. In your prior message, it seemed you proposed to fork the protocol to change the difficulty using only a 51% attack. I explained that honest miners would ignore the fork. Now you seem to imply the attacker can do a 51% attack, but mine with 1000X the hashrate so they don't need to change the protocol. Well then that isn't a 51% attack, it is the 1000X attack. So you've made no point at all. But it is difficult to understand what you mean, because the above just doesn't make any sense.

So what the hell are you trying to say here?

Please stop wasting my time. Write coherently and correctly at one post. Put your entire point in one post and expend the effort to make your post coherent. This back and forth is very wasteful.

On the continuous sliding adjustment window, this doesn't impact anything w.r.t. to this issue. It is just equivalent to a smoothing filter.

W.r.t. to detecting attack blocks, this is nonsense. All blocks looks the same. There is no way to identify which blocks are coming from the attacker unless all the honest nodes are colluding. But that defeats the entire point of decentralization and trustless. The attacker could Sybil attack your trust for example.

ArcticMine you always drag me into the long nonsense debates and then I win at the end. Please be more respectful of my time.