Quote from: jbreher on January 08, 2019, 02:34:03 AM

Quote from: infofront on January 07, 2019, 10:26:30 PM

Quote from: jbreher on January 07, 2019, 10:18:53 PM

Quote from: Last of the V8s on January 07, 2019, 10:04:52 PM

https://i.imgur.com/Wpnnssp.png
https://twitter.com/girevik_/status/1082381014033485824
n.o.d.e.s
@jbreher and all bcash lollers
also @VB1001

I don't know what you're on my case for. Are you implying that if the ETC officials ran more nodes, that this attack would not have happened? If so, you are 100% incorrect. Such fully-validating non-mining clients are powerless to stop rollback attacks made by overwhelming hashpower.

Besides, I run a fully-validating non-mining client. Several in fact. However, I am not under the widespread delusion that this provides the system as a whole any benefit.

Fully-validating non-mining clients got segwit shoved through, albeit indirectly.

I will grant that one way at looking at that situation was that miners looked at statements by all those sybillable non-mining fully-validating clients, and interpreted them as a valid measure of economic support. But we'll likely never know. Regardless, the battle was never fought. Which, while being the ultimate form of victory, leaves the 'what if' question as an unsettled matter.

Are you implying that if the ETC officials ran more 'nodes', that the above described attack could not have happened?

No. I was addressing:

Quote

I run a fully-validating non-mining client. Several in fact. However, I am not under the widespread delusion that this provides the system as a whole any benefit.

Which makes me wonder why you bother running the clients.