Quote from: Stalker22 on April 17, 2025, 08:25:18 PM

Quote from: PortBy on April 17, 2025, 07:53:56 PM

~

But who exactly should mark the blocks? Who would assess whether such a mark is valid or forged? Who flips the off switch? Who decides when to turn it back on and how to "make up" for lost time? You are proposing a centralized kill switch in a decentralized system - its a contradiction in terms.

User @PortBy plagiarize this post.

Quote from: mcdouglasx on March 23, 2025, 11:05:27 PM

In a scenario of such magnitude, there should be a "day zero," meaning that regardless of whether half the planet remains without power, Bitcoin should cease to be used, and when it is restored, it should compensate from that point of failure. This way, you avoid 51% attacks or blocks mined at a low difficulty, which would be disastrous—like accidentally putting a product on sale at a low price in a supermarket.

The idea would be that periodically, the Bitcoin network would "mark" a block as a secure reference point. This marked block would act as a global consensus on the state of the chain at that moment. In the event of a catastrophic event (such as a massive blackout or a 51% attack), the network could restart from the last marked block, thus avoiding issues like chain reorganization or mining at an incorrect difficulty.

So your question should be directed to @mcdouglasx instead. As for idea of "mark" a block, i guess it could be as simple as choosing block with 2000 block height lower than most recent ones.