Quote from: jbreher on May 26, 2017, 10:52:33 PM

Quote from: gmaxwell on May 26, 2017, 08:30:34 AM

Quote from: dinofelis on May 26, 2017, 08:07:51 AM

a valid block is simply by definition, that block on which miners decide to build the rest of the chain.

This directly contradicts the text of the whitepaper-- which specifically talks about an attacker overpowering with invalid blocks:

Quote

As such, the (simplified) verification is reliable as long as honest nodes control the network, but is more vulnerable if the network is overpowered by an attacker. While network nodes can verify transactions for themselves, the simplified method can be fooled by an attacker's fabricated transactions transactions for as long as the attacker can continue to overpower the network. One strategy to protect against this would be to accept alerts from network nodes when they detect an invalid block,

No, Gregory, your whitepaper quote does not contradict the notion that blocks that are built atop are the very definition of block validity.

Quote

But more importantly, it contradicts the behavior of every version of Bitcoin ever released, including all those released by Satoshi.

Not at all. Are you saying that there are invalid blocks included in the blockchain at this point? Manifestly this notion is untrue.

Maybe he means the "scrubbed" version of the whitepaper (http://themerkle.com/blockstream-wants-to-rewrite-the-bitcoin-whitepaper/). And LOL that gmax is suddenly the person "staying true to Satoshi's vision"...