The number of block producers that need to coordinate to refuse a transaction is about the same both for Steem and Bitcoin.
On Bitcoin 15 mining pools control 91.8% of the hashrate vs the 15 top witnesses positions in Steem that are needed for consensus.
So in terms of the number of actors that need to coordinate the risk is about equal...the difference is in the cost to carry out such an "attack".
the difference is in the cost to carry out such an "attack".I agree. Even 1 person, as long as you have the resources, in both chains.
Thank you,
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
15 witnesses that would surely risk their positions much more than the 15 mining pools, should they do anything that their voters don't agree with, whereas on Bitcoin the risk is much more indirect and endlessly less costly.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
Sun took over the Steem chain easy with just a few millions. Oen server to run everything.
I want to see him try the same thing on the Bitcoin chain.
Then will try to compare the costs
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
Except that it still hasn't happened, even despite the attempts at using/hacking the exchanges. You know what cost absolutely nothing though and is clearly transaction refusal even so? The witnesses softforking stinc's stake out. They risked close to nothing considering that they didn't go against the voters. Hypothetically, what would the risk/reward be for mining pools doing the same, especially when there's no governance built in?
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit