0
What does it mean that there is either the attacker or honest node. This means that within 10 minutes either attacker or honest node mines a block but what about neither OR another side ? How could this be interpreted ?
Does it make sense or what is interpretation of neither attacker nor honest node succeed in finding a block ? What would that mean for the consensus rule that there is a third side ?
-1
This is open to interpretation, but this is how I see it.
Accept the blockchain history and do not try to retroactively modify it.
Nodes that try to change data in past blocks and recalculate the proof of work. Note:
To modify a past block, an attacker would have to redo the proof-of-work of the block and all blocks after it and then catch up with and surpass the work of the honest nodes. See Bitcoin Whitepaper pg. 3
The reason this is important is because, theoretically if more than half of the nodes on the network are trying to attack the blockchain, they might succeed and effectively gain control because collectively, they can compute the proof of work faster.
Does it make sense or what is interpretation of neither attacker nor honest node succeed in finding a block ? What would that mean for the consensus rule that there is a third side ?
I'm not sure what exactly you would define as a "third side", but if, for example, there was a third group that was not "honest" it would be considered another attacker. Now, if the third group is not attacking the blockchain in the same way as the other attacker group, that could split the chain into 3 different forks: 1 "honest" chain, and 2 different "compromised" chains.
much more feasible to have different compromised chains. "Third side" meaning a different attacker or that stalling of the first two approaches. – peter – 2018-07-13T14:51:12.513