Mempool Incentive Compatibility

Mempool Incentive Compatibility

Original Postby ganava

Posted on: March 30, 2024 05:09 UTC

The discussion revolves around a critique of a proposal perceived to be fundamentally flawed.

The initial criticism highlighted a general issue, exemplified by a specific mechanism, which the proposer subsequently addressed in a narrow manner, focusing on the mechanism rather than the underlying flaw. This approach led to a conclusion that further engagement on the matter would not be productive.

A key point of contention is the mention of an "infinite cycle attack" linked to replace-by-fee-rate mechanisms, suggesting a potentially unaddressed general flaw within the system. Despite this, evidence from practical application, such as the use of Libre Relay, indicates that nodes have not been subjected to such attacks. However, it's argued that the lack of attacks does not inherently validate the security of the system, drawing a parallel to the inability to prove the invulnerability of SHA256. The ongoing operation of Bitcoin is cited as empirical evidence of its security, despite theoretical vulnerabilities.

This discourse underscores the complexities of assessing and ensuring the security of cryptographic systems and protocols. It emphasizes the importance of considering both theoretical vulnerabilities and empirical evidence when evaluating the robustness of such systems.