Quote from: aliashraf on April 14, 2020, 04:49:08 PM

I see no confusion in what you have quoted from me. It is crystal clear: Your claim about full nodes playing such a crucial role in bitcoin is simply wrong and baseless. As I've extensively discussed up-thread, full nodes have nothing to do with the network security, they are just useful for the entities who own them as a single body to keep them somewhat more secure against some attacks that are not considered realistic anyway.

Either you are incorrect, or unclear, or both.

Quote from: aliashraf on April 14, 2020, 04:49:08 PM

I read the article you've linked, the day it was published, good statistics about Ethereum but nothing new for bitcoin,

That's great, good for you.

Quote from: aliashraf on April 14, 2020, 04:49:08 PM

Ethereum's snapshots. The latter is vulnerable to short-range attacks UTXO commitment is not!

Feel free to describe it.

Quote from: aliashraf on April 14, 2020, 04:49:08 PM

the same blind enthusiasm about current bitcoin. Put some real meat on the table, please. Cheesy

.. which is really a stupid paranoia. It could also be considered a forgery of concepts to spread FUD about the mining scene of bitcoin for political reasons, again, stupid.

It's a challenge to take you for serious when you write like this. It's unclear what you are trying to say, if anything.

Quote from: aliashraf on April 14, 2020, 04:49:08 PM

Quote from: a.s.t.e.r.i.s.k on April 14, 2020, 12:00:10 PM

A 51% attack would not let through a double-spend
Last to respond to your question in the thread's title, "Is 51% attack a double-spending threat to Bitcoin?", I guess you have the answer already: It is not.

Why? According to you, it is because full nodes won't allow it but my argument is more solid: It is not gonna happen because it will be revealed anyways and destroy the attacker completely beforehand. Bitcoin inflation rules are currently parts of a social contract, rather than some lines of code, it is hard to understand but you should try.

Why did you make a thread with the title "Re: Is 51% attack a double-spending threat to bitcoin?" - a question to which the answer is no - to discuss a Bitcoin fork?

You suggest a "it (doublespends?) will be revealed anyways (now how, unlike how else?) and destroy the attacker completely beforehand (how?)" related to "Bitcoin inflation rules" in the "social contract, rather than some lines of code".

Are you trying to communicate a Bitcoin fork or protocol feature suggestion?

Anyhow this was my last post here.