Hacker News Reader

> Large block supporters tend to think you only need a few full nodes to get immunity from these types of attacks

How exactly do you see an attack on full nodes going down? I imagine the attack would occur on the mining side..

Also, if the mempool becomes more expensive to host than blocks on disk - would you still think small blocks are safer?

Hack the full nodes to modify their database. Or cut a business deal with the biggest full nodes (Coinbase, Bitmain, Shapeshift, But go, etc.) and decide to implement a rule much of the network opposes, like raising the block size (which consequentially makes a repeat attack easier in the future because fewer users will have the resources to run full nodes themselves)

> and decide to implement a rule much of the network opposes

And they'll immediately be blacklisted from the network..

Do people realize you can store the entire bitcoin chain for less than the cost of one transaction? The centralization narrative doesn't hold up.

The mempool is whatever you want it to be. You set the fee by which a transaction rides past your node.

And yes, multiple attacks have been attempted by the miner side on full nodes. The most recent being Segwit2X, which didn't get off the ground because convincing 100k nodes that their version of Bitcoin was different wasn't going to work.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com