The quadratic hashing issue is a non-problem.
Any miner that creates a block that takes inordinate time to validate will find himself bankrupted by other miners who continue hashing on the same parent to find a peer solved block. Such a peer solved block will validate well before the aberrant block, leading to the aberrant block being orphaned. 'Problem' solved. With the incentives as they exist today. Unchanged.
Any miner that creates a block that takes inordinate time to validate will find himself bankrupted by other miners who continue hashing on the same parent to find a peer solved block. Such a peer solved block will validate well before the aberrant block, leading to the aberrant block being orphaned. 'Problem' solved. With the incentives as they exist today. Unchanged.
I love the semantic hair split between "issue" and "problem" that you start off with. Great spin. Very Comical Ali of you.
But how can you predict exact future scenarios like that? Are you psychic? Do you have visions or hear angels?
The rest of us simply don't know the specifics about the situation (which seems to be both empirical and theoretical!) you are describing.
Doesn't the percent of total mining power the putative attack block creator determine the likelihood of his attack fork will be reclaimed by the defending chain?
Doesn't variance also play a non-computable role in determining whether the attack block-based or defending chain-based side will win?
If the quadratic hashing issue is a truly a "non-problem" then why did Gavin write an unforgivably kludgy, quick and dirty, non-futureproof workaround for it?
