Re: Drivechain critiques by gmaxwell revisited, maybe you changed your mind?

A 51% attack on Bitcoin only allows miners to double spend. On a drivechain, they can just steal everything.

It has been said ever and ever, still a very misleading and wrong assertion.

Paul Sztorc admits it is true here... increasing the withdrawal requirement to 13,150 ACKs.

No, he doesn't and it wouldn't matter if he does. But you are misreading his faq comment. I'm not discussing Drivechain project or its devs' opinions, anyway. As of 13,150 ACKs, they became poisoned by the "51% theft security whole" hoax and ruined their project by such stupid decisions. My proposal: let's put it on 200 ACKs and observe that there will be no theft for the next couple of decades.

Quote

Quote from: aliashraf on March 14, 2020, 11:40:09 AM

A hypothetical collusion by miners against a sidechain in the future, will make my above argument void as it proves the mere existence of a 51% that exposes bitcoin to double-spend and censorship threats.

Sidechain theft is much easier than targeted double-spend attacks. That's something you aren't accounting for.

What do you mean by "easier" Huh

Computers are doing the job Cheesy

It is easy as long as you got the magical 51% relative power!

And FYI, from a game-theoretic perspective, it is a hell "harder" to steal a penny from sidechains compared to the mainnet. Double-spending is a covert operation and mainnet full-nodes are absolutely blind about it, but sidechain full nodes will detect the theft at the moment it is happening.

Quote

What you're suggesting is just attempted censorship and is probably virtually impossible already.

It is impossible because of the game theory behind bitcoin and its network hash rate and the market cap. Taproot has nothing to do with it.

Sadly, you are not reading my comments.