The risk is that a miner would confirm destructively large blocks, possible in great number. The other risk is that a miner might include a single transaction that contains an abnormally high number of inputs, or (for those familiar with actual financial services business, structuring) a series of transactions containing a large, but under 3 standard deviations from the norm inputs that add up to a danger, resulting in On2 scaling problems that could give a competitive advantage to miners who are better connected to money over IP and have lower risk of orphaned blocks, or might try to chain these risks into similar competitive attacks.

The rudimentary solution to this was figured out years ago, to limit individual transaction size in conjunction with an increase in max_block_size. Since then entire development projects have created production tested schemes that not only solve this problem more elegantly, but improve on general transmission and consensus protocols. These advances are not being considered on their merit, but are being filtered through egos. That is truly unfortunate for people far more important than the egos involved.

If you run the math on what kind of dominance in terms of processing power it would take for an attack like this, combined with the ease of detection, and the 'off the shelf' fixes that are now core protocol improvements that are being blatantly ignored, well, I digress.

Have some unicorn on the cobb. And a nice day.

PS: I can't believe over 1b USD had been invested in this industry and you clowns don't already live and breath these basic KPIs of the dominant cryptocurrency. For those that don't have or are willing to toss their moral compass, there is a lot of beyond dumb money out there to be had.

It's too bad that venture capital and angel investing is so pathetically inefficient and prone to industry specific stupidity. We should figure out a better way to source funds. I.E. not to shills, clowns, visionary hucksters, and con-men.