As I said no business is going to shoot themselves in the foot. If they participate in an attack that would crash bitcoin price, they'll brick their own investment.
If their systems have been hacked, or they have been ordered by their government to do something, or they have been internally compromised then... they will brick their own investment. They wouldn't have any choice. It is impossible to know what percentage of bitcoins do things the wrong way. Claiming "most" of bitcoins are like that is just a guess.
You can do the hard analysis to see what percentage of Bitcoin transactions are coming from brokers. My guess is that it's almost all of the volume. Next, try to find somebody you know who doesn't have an account on this forum who has a self-custodial wallet  . I personally know zero people like this. Every single person I've ever talked to in person who holds Bitcoin does so through a broker or an app. Anecdotal, I know, but it sure seems like a remarkable coincidence. 95% crash is debatable but they can definitely crash the market with a ban. However, it won't be because people use it in a centralized way. It would be because if dozens of countries suddenly banned bitcoin, people would start panic selling it which would crash bitcoin. Something that would still happen even if not a single centralized exchange (or any other centralized service) existed.
If no centralized exchanges existed, and nobody could buy Bitcoin through straight-forward means, I suspect Bitcoin would still be a dollar. Most average consumers don't want to go to all of that trouble. |
|
|
|
The simple answer here would be is that it would take a great deal for any entity to try and control most of bitcoin.
Satoshi is right that as long as they are not evil, they will not do anything to sabotage the decentralized nature of bitcoin at all. Since miners can work independently, it would be difficult to try and convince a lot of them to work under a specific entity especially one with malicious intent.
I don’t know if there is any recent data but bitcoin’s decentralization must be strengthened over time in order to prevent this.
Right. But that was never the question. The question is, what if they are evil? And over time, it would appear that decentralization is diminishing and the natural consolidation of businesses will probably consolidate it further.
miners know many pools of different brands and which are affiliated or not.. heck even you know which ones are affiliated and which are not. so if 2 pools were colluding. and miner owners working for their pool notice dodgy stuff happening to their pools blocks. the miners can hop to a different pool thats not colluding
Brands? Huh? What are you talking about? Can you tell me the "brands" of each of the severs below? a) 33.171.87.6 b) 103.52.102.88 c) 65.191.4.49 All I see are IP addresses, which can be changed on the fly and spoofed. That's all any software on the Internet sees. How would miners magically know what nodes are "good" and which ones have been compromised? And what actual mechanism is there to "decide" any of this? Certainly no centralized mechanism. |
|
|
|
Lol fair comparison. Biden just prints money and never once supported Bitcoin. Trump has supported Bitcoin and is Republican which is more capitalist than Democrats. Republicans are also against printing money.
Trump used to hate Bitcoin before three weeks ago. And today Republicans are not "capitalist" anymore--you need to update yourself on US politics. And Republicans are not against "printing money" by which I assume you mean running fiscal deficits. Trump ran the biggest deficits in the history of the USA and said that if he were elected we would have run bigger ones. You seem to have a 1990s view of the Republican party. I like that one a lot better too. But that isn't what exists anymore. Today the Republican party is the crazy one, and Democrats are the rational and stable ones. |
|
|
|
1. There's no evidence that Biden has ever fallen asleep in any sort of meeting, but you are going to believe that anyhow.
Really? What about the Memorial Day video? I'd say he's napping, but yes, there's no proof that he is. You'd have to be sitting net to him to hear his breath and know that he's out. Again, you believe what you want to believe because of your political beliefs. Trump is "young" and Biden is "old" even though they are in a statistical dead-heat in terms of age . And Bitcoin went up 500% in the last three years so there's simply no evidence that all of this evil you allege Warren or whatever Democrats is having any negative effect on Bitcoin. It's clearly thriving, so my guess is that you are simply in favor of Trump and the Republicans winning for reasons not related to Bitcoin--which is totally fine.
500% in 3 years? Since mid 2021? Where did you get these numbers? In Spring and Summer 2021 the price was between $30 and 60k and this year it's in the 50-70k range. Count that again because it doesn't add up to 500% Also, how are you going to prove that what bitcoin did in the last 3 years wouldn't be 3x that if there was no Democrats to mess with it? Sorry, I mean during Biden's presidency. I forget that we're already in June... The authorities in the Biden administration put SBF in prison and rescued the Bitcoin market from almost certain ruin.
They also allowed him to run his scam for years before it blew up. Um, Trump was president before Biden was. You know that, right? SBF started under Trump and then under Biden, he was put in prison. Trump is the president who pardoned convicted criminals who donated to his campaign, not Biden. https://www.politico.com/news/2021/01/20/donald-trump-pardons-460932 |
|
|
|
I've seen some articles/videos speculating that support of of cryptocurrency investors (and there are millions of them in the US) could be a deciding factor in the upcoming presidential elections.
That's why Trump, who back in the days wasn't very enthusiastic towards Bitcoin (although I wouldn't say he was against it) has now become 100% pro-crypto.
It will be much harder for the Democrats and Biden to bring the crypto crowd on their side, given they were known for being outright hostile to the industry, with special mention to Elizabeth Warren, who, if I remember correctly, even proposed a tax on unrealised crypto-gains, which is insane.
Most people who want to take the secure route with their Bitcoin holders will vote for Biden. Trump promises massive change and disruption to the US economy, which will be bad for Bitcoin. And no, Elizabeth Warren never proposed any sort of tax specifically on Bitcoin, nor would such a thing ever get anywhere near passing in the US Senate let alone Congress as a whole. What Warren (and others) proposed is that Bitcoin and other cryptos be treated just like every other investment, which means that realized gains are taxed. Bitcoin does not deserve any special treatment by the government. Any Republican administration would want the same thing. |
|
|
|
This is why you are already getting false information here about Foundry USA and Antpool that leads you to the false conclusion "two public companies in the world that control over half of the Bitcoin network". These companies do NOT control the entire said percentage of hashrate. They are mining pools that actual miners with actual hashrate connect to. The hashrate in their own control is less.
That means if the pool turns malicious, miners would migrate and that percentage would fall.
Well okay, maybe it would require controlling more than just two companies in order to take over the network? That's good to know. But it doesn't sound like it would be that many more.
Also keep in mind that in order for an entity to perform a 51% attack they will have to have actual control over the mining equipment. Meaning the said government has to kick down doors and send SWAT teams to physically seize people's ASICs from their homes [...]
Or, their government of jurisdiction could pass a law ordering them to submit; or, a government or other large entity could bribe, extort, or otherwise convince them to submit; or, their systems could be taken over by hacking. No "SWAT teams" are necessary to do this. In any case we should be concerned about centralization creeping in at all times. But I wouldn't make any conclusions on whether things are already centralized or not. I have brought this up in other threads as well: today, most holders of Bitcoin do so in a centralized way (a broker or an app with KYC), leading one to conclude that most consumers are not at all interested in "decentralization". And while a government take-over of control over the whole network is a source of debate here, it's clear if the US or the EU decided one day that Bitcoin was "bad", they could take steps that would easily drop the price of Bitcoin down by about 95%. Again, this is because most consumers of Bitcoin use it in a way that is completely centralized and therefore subject to government regulation. They may not be able to fully "kill" Bitcoin, but they could very easily eliminate it as a mainstream product that average consumers use. |
|
|
|
1. The attack would not entail one lone miner, but rather many miners in a coordinated attack/government order.
2. There would be no incremental cost for such a move since these are companies that already have the servers in place and are mining for the network every single day. The challenge here is convincing/forcing/tricking a smaller number of companies to do something, not duplicate what they are doing already.
If they do that, both Foundry USA and Antpool will be sued for breaching regulations, remember that big companies are under regulations and they can't monopoly the mining pools. Many mining pools had been sued for done something that give them own benefit, so I wouldn't worry so much about conspiracy thing. Really? What regulations? Under which jurisdiction? And Bitcoin mining is... regulated? Are you sure? Are you telling me there's a law saying Bitcoin miners can't "monopoly" the hashrate? I find it pretty crazy that the US Congress was able to construct such a law on such a specific and complicated technology. (Of course there would be no "monopoly" necessary here since all that is required is 51%). And we're talking about a scenario where these two (two!) companies would either be compelled by a government using the law or attacked by a government using force of some kind (network infiltration, etc.). |
|
|
|
So far many of the posters here seem to have missed the point I was making about the risk. 1. The attack would not entail one lone miner, but rather many miners in a coordinated attack/government order. 2. There would be no incremental cost for such a move since these are companies that already have the servers in place and are mining for the network every single day. The challenge here is convincing/forcing/tricking a smaller number of companies to do something, not duplicate what they are doing already.
With the current hashrate percentage, as you asked the government will only get to hold onto just two pools; foundary USA (26.67% hashrate) and Antpool (25.38% hashrate) to make it a 51% hashrate.
So... there are two public companies in the world that control over half of the Bitcoin network. Okay. So much for being "decentralized" . Seriously, what is to stop the USA/EU/some other country from simply ordering these two companies to change Bitcoin's central software in order to make it do different things e.g. give Satoshi's blocks to charity? One other thing that keeps coming up here is the notion that "somebody" could reject the participation of miners who are, upon deep analysis, breaking the rules. Who enforces that rules? How? I get that any of us here could simply do our own calculations, but what would be the exact mechanism wherein the network, without any central authority whatsoever, would "reject" this software change? Perhaps I have my answer below?
so all they can mess with is the amount of transactions they include or if enough power over enough time go back and change the transaction list of a recent old block and then catch up to re-org the chain of recent blocks to undo some confirmed transactions
Um, that sounds like... total control of Bitcoin to me . Seriously, if I could double-spend and validate blocks without the private key, that's... absolute control of the network, at least in terms of Bitcoin's actual function.
if an entity took over a mining pool server. miners can simply 'pool hop' away to another mining pool or even just a different stratum ip address of same brand if they notice silliness occur to blocks produced by a certain pool
How would you know which is which on the fly? And what is to stop the majority hashrate from doing it's own "pool hopping" or for that matter any individual miner today? If users of the network can simply pick and choose the nodes they will and won't work with, then that means a 51% attack is even easier since the "good" nodes would be instantly iced out and deemed "evil" by the "evil" nodes. And if you are talking about doing things based on ip addresses, then boy oh boy, there are lots and lots of problems with that. IP addresses can change in milliseconds, there are many ways to change/cloak them, and so on. No serious secure system on the public Internet uses ip addresses as a mechanism for identity. So question is, how would one stop a 51% attack? From my understand of the network, a "51% attack" would immediately turn into a "49% attack" by the losing minority, and the "good" nodes would be treated as the "evil" ones. |
|
|
|
The prevailing notion about Bitcoin is that: 1. It is "impossible" for any government or other large entity to control Bitcoin. 2. Bitcoin is "absolutely safe" since the redundancy and dispersal of the network makes it impossible to compromise. But as we discussed in another thread here, Satoshi identified, in the original Bitcoin whitepaper, the risk of a "51% attack" on the Bitcoin network. Bitcoin's integrity is safe, Satoshi said in essence, as long as a majority of the network's hashrate is not "evil". Bitcoin's hashrate is controlled by "miners", and some of these mining companies are large, publicly traded companies. The question this brings up is this: how hard would it be for some "evil" entity--say a major world government or an extremely sophisticated group of hackers--to gain control of the the companies (or key personnel within those companies, or key servers within those companies) that comprise over 51% of the hashrate, and thus take control of Bitcoin? Or in another scenario, how many companies would a large government e.g. the US or the EU need to compel in order to effectively change the Bitcoin network? Here is an article that alleges that just 0.1% of Bitcoin miners control half of all mining capacity. It's a little old, and I would wonder if the hashrate is even more concentrated now, since that's what businesses tend to do: consolidate. Does anybody have any more recent data about this? To me, this seems like a really big deal since it calls the security of the Bitcoin network itself into question. And at minimum, the idea that only a handful of public, not-government-proof, companies actually control Bitcoin sorta... flies in the face of the prevailing Bitcoin mythology . |
|
|
|
That trial was so boring that you'd fall asleep too and Trump said he just closed his eyes a few times and was never asleep. I wouldn't be surprised if the media wanted to make a bigger thing out of this than it really was.
So: 1. There's no evidence that Biden has ever fallen asleep in any sort of meeting, but you are going to believe that anyhow. 2. There's evidence on video of Trump falling asleep in his criminal trial, but you choose not to believe that. You aren't following the evidence, buddy . You are following your heart. You can love Trump all you want, but you don't get to choose your own facts . That's complete and utter lie. Do you feel protected by Elizabeth Warren? How is she protecting anything by screaming that bitcoin is bad for the environment, or trying to tax bitcoin miners to force them out of the country? I feel like you're trolling here, trying to get emotional response out of us.
Not everybody here is a hard-core Republican who watches Fox News all day. There exists other viewpoints in the world, believe it or not . When I get my wireless bill and it no longer has hidden BS fees, I "feel protected by Elizabeth Warren" because she helped create the laws in Congress that took those things out of there. And Bitcoin went up 500% in the last three years so there's simply no evidence that all of this evil you allege Warren or whatever Democrats is having any negative effect on Bitcoin. It's clearly thriving, so my guess is that you are simply in favor of Trump and the Republicans winning for reasons not related to Bitcoin--which is totally fine. Just take a look at what the FTX scandal did to the price of Bitcoin.
That happened under the nose of the SEC. Gensler was meeting with SBF in person. This shows they don't care about any consumer porotection, but money. They cared that SBF donated money to their campaigns and paid a shitload in taxes. The authorities in the Biden administration put SBF in prison and rescued the Bitcoin market from almost certain ruin. Again, if you are interested in Bitcoin, and the price of Bitcoin staying stable or going up, then there's no argument to be made against Biden and the Democrats. Now imagine what would happen if, instead of being thrown in prison for that, SBF was given the presidential medal of honor because he made a massive contribution to Trump.
Didn't he donate more to the Democrats? If anybody should give him the medal it's Biden. SBF was caught because he was too greedy and went bankrupt, not because of Biden, Warren or Gensler. He sure did. But because Democrats are (sadly) unique in their dedication to law and order among our major political parties today, SBF's donations to the Democrats did not help him at all. He was imprisoned regardless. Democrats prioritized law and order. Only Trump takes donations in exchange for pardoning criminal acts. |
|
|
|
|
Bitcoin went up 500% under President Biden.
So I dunno, maybe if Trump loses, Bitcoin will... go up in price by another 500%?
On the other hand, if Trump wins, Bitcoin will probably drop like a rock because he brings radical change and economic uncertainty to the USA:
1. Trump wants to immediately deport 5% of the US workforce, bringing economic chaos.
2. Trump and his party wants to stop all abortions that occur in the USA, and stop Americans from leaving the country to have one, which will require a massive new police force like the one the US created to enforce the prohibition--and those police forces tend to crack down on things like Bitcoin since it can be used to pay for illegal abortions or illegal travel.
3. Trump is a convicted criminal and his supporters don't care: thus, he will do every illegal thing imaginable in order to make himself money, and for Bitcoin that would mean making Bitcoin illegal so he could replace it with a crypto he himself owns.
Biden winning the election in November will be, by far, the best thing for Bitcoin and the broader digital currency market. If Trump wins, it could kill the entire market.
|
|
|
|
@legiteum. You are also implying that if there is a big dump occurrence on markets before the presidential elections on November, this will cause voters from the cryptospace might remove their support for Joe Biden? This implies that it is safe to speculate that the Biden administration will very much do everything to stop a market dump under his administration. However, how good is the economy and can they do this until November? Pump the campaign, sell the election hehehehee.
If Biden wins, the Bitcoin market will continue to do what it has been doing. It will be no change--which is good, since Bitcoin has been going up. I don't think the Biden administration would do anything one way or another about the market for Bitcoin before the election--or after. Us free-marketers like the government to... leave the markets alone . |
|
|
|
The arbiter of what is the "true chain" is... the 51%. He clearly emphasizes that a 51% attack, which is what an attacker's chain growing faster than the honest is, does not grant the attacker arbitrary power to change the protocol. I find it surprising that you, and seemingly no one else that I've encountered, hold the misconception that 51% of the hashrate can dictate protocol rules to the remaining 49%. I wonder what other misconceptions about Bitcoin I will come across in my lifetime. Ever wonder why people talk about the "51% attack" on Bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies? Doesn't it make you wonder what they are talking about? And I think the majority of the posters here--and most of the ones who have engaged in the conversation in a non-superficial way--acknowledge that such an attack is possible. But it it makes you feel better to think that it's "impossible" to corrupt the Bitcoin network even for a major superpower like China, I guess you should go ahead and... feel that way... |
|
|
|
If Trump is really elected, he should fulfill his promise to the crypto community because it is clear that the crypto community is supporting and siding with him rather than Biden.
Bitcoin went up 500% under president Biden.Most of the individual voters in the "crypto community" will most likely support whatever candidate they were going to support anyhow, but clearly the safe bet for those who exclusively care about their Bitcoin price and nothing else will support President Biden. |
|
|
|
|
Today, Bitcoin is a speculation instrument and almost nothing else.
Bitcoin was originally created for one reason, which is to thwart government subpoenas and visibility into transactions. Because of the public ledger, Bitcoin transactions are ultimately trackable, so that really never worked out.
Today, almost all holders of Bitcoin do so with an app or a broker who holds their holdings in some centralized database. Bitcoin is absolutely not "decentralized" for almost all of its holders today, showing that almost all users really don't care about "decentralization". All they care about is that their investment goes up in value, just like investors of any other stock or ETF.
I wouldn't call something that has already happened and started happening five years ago, "gradual" though.
|
|
|
|
The FTX fiasco was unfortunate for many people who lost their money, but I don't believe state (over)regulation is going to save retail investors.
If they didn't put SBF in prison, then Bitcoin would still be in the toilet that it was in before they cleaned that up. Surely overregulation can be destructive, but obviously we need some regulation. The crypto community invented a new protocol called Proof of Reserves to verify if a CEX holds 1:1 reserves and thus prevent any future Ponzi attempts.
Um, does the "crypto community" have subpoena power? Can they bring charges and convict felons? I don't think so. Criminals like SBF surely wouldn't have been slowed down by any sort of "community". You need real laws to actually change behavior and protect consumers. |
|
|
|
Because Bitcoin went up 500% under president Biden.
Hence it was 500% less when Trump left office. Um, let me remind you: Bitcoin went from $1000 to $36,000 during Trump's presidency. That's 3500% up. If you want to resort to this soundbite, at least make sure it doesn't work in the other way around. Trump's written platform makes it clear his administration will consider abortion to be "murder", and they outline a massive new police force that will be necessary to eliminate abortions in the USA. I'm trying to see the connection with Bitcoin here. There are millions of abortions that occur in the USA every year by millions of women. To stop all of these people from doing what they want, Trump's administration will have to create a massive new police presence. They are already creating this in various states, some of which are actually starting to control their own borders in order to keep women from leaving to have an abortion. The point is, the US tried something like this before 100 years ago in the Prohibition. That invented a gigantic new police presence, and lead to hundreds of new laws cracking down on people's privacy. Trump's party is going to need to build something even bigger in order to stop all of those people from, well, having sex .
Uh.... sure. I guess if you get your news from the Kremlin, that's what you'd think, right?
Alright, then, what's the source of the truth, according to the Democrats you?  I'm no Democrat, I just like to vote for the party that will be the best for my investments and business. But regardless, I sure do not get my news from... the Kremlin. That article says that SBF donated to the Democrats, which he did. It does not say that he laundered money for Biden and/or that said laundering contributed to Putin's decision to invade Ukraine (which is bizarre). SBF has been put in prison under Biden's presidency. And we all know that Trump would have pardoned him had the situation been reversed (which would have absolutely buried the price of Bitcoin forever since nobody could trust any broker if its effectively legal to rip off Bitcoin investors, which is what Trump would have done). I don't mean to imply that Biden was solely or even partially responsible for making Bitcoin go up in price, but he gets credit for not screwing it up
Like most other politicians all around the world? Are we going to thank Angela Merkel for not screwing it up in Germany since 2009? If Biden wasn't, in your own words, even partially responsible, why are we even using this argument in the discussion? Well, I guess... indirectly responsible? Put it this way, if there is an overall business context that has done really well for you, and somebody comes along and promises to drastically change that context, the smart move is to resist the change. The way I see it, both Biden and Trump are bad people and would make bad presidents. People like Kennedy Jr would be much better, but that's my personal opinion. If I had to choose between these two I'd pick Trump because at least he's not in bed with that witch Elizabeth Warren and won't fall asleep during meetings.
Trump is the one who fell asleep during his trial a few week ago. Biden has never done anything of the kind. You are getting your US news mixed up . And regulations like the ones Elizabeth Warren advocates, to protect average consumers, helps increase the price of Bitcoin. Just take a look at what the FTX scandal did to the price of Bitcoin. Now imagine what would happen if, instead of being thrown in prison for that, SBF was given the presidential medal of honor because he made a massive contribution to Trump. Every average consumer would know they could be ripped off if they invested in Bitcoin and would bail out. More often than not, regulations help the market, not hurt it. |
|
|
|
I don't mean to imply that Biden was solely or even partially responsible for making Bitcoin go up in price, but he gets credit for not screwing it up Why isn't Trump getting the credit for "not screwing it up" during his previous presidency? Because Bitcoin went up 500% under president Biden. Hence it was 500% less when Trump left office. And of course all of this was before Trump learned he could break the law and his voters wouldn't care... e.g. making massive changes to our society like the ones Trump is promising that will drastically change the market.
What massively different will it be comparably to his previous presidency? You're giving me the impression that he'll now turn 180º and start attacking the market. What's the argument that supports this claim? I wrote the items above, but what the heck, I'll just write them again: 1. Trump plans to deport about %5 of America's workforce, which will massively disrupt the US economy. 2. Trump's written platform makes it clear his administration will consider abortion to be "murder", and they outline a massive new police force that will be necessary to eliminate abortions in the USA. Based on the numbers involved, this will be an effort much larger in scale than say the Prohibition police forces that where generated, for instance. Police forces like this very pointedly come after anything that can be used to evade the police. 3. Trump is overtly criminal (and now convicted), and its clear that his voters simply don't care. He'd have to be an utter idiot (and the people around him would) to not take advantage of this incredible power. If he ever turned to cryptocurrency, the most logical thing for him to do would be to make Bitcoin illegal and offer the currency he wholly owns in its place (and maybe he'll call his currency "abortion proof" or something just for fun). If you want one new FTX scandal a month, then vote for Trump . FTX was literally a money laundering business for Biden and a contributor to the Ukrainian war. Uh.... sure. I guess if you get your news from the Kremlin, that's what you'd think, right? |
|
|
|
Bitcoin went up 500% under President Biden.
The safe bet is sticking with the president under which Bitcoin went up 500%.
This is very misleading. Bitcoin went up by 500 percent under the Presidency of Biden not because of Biden but because this is how Bitcoin simply goes. You are saying it as if the 500 percent is the work of Biden. I don't mean to imply that Biden was solely or even partially responsible for making Bitcoin go up in price, but he gets credit for not screwing it up e.g. making massive changes to our society like the ones Trump is promising that will drastically change the market. On the whole, Biden has left Bitcoin alone, and the few regulations that have been added were designed to prevent more disasters like FTX, which, recall, destroyed the price of Bitcoin. If you want one new FTX scandal a month, then vote for Trump . In fact. Choosing a President based strictly on who is supporting Bitcoin as a facade is extremely stupid in my opinion. You should take into account MUCH more important things than the support for or against Bitcoin. Your entire life can change within the Term of a President. Not just the value of your Bitcoin Wallet.
Absolutely agree. But sadly many people vote nothing but their (perception of) their immediate wallet. But in this case, Biden wins that as well. |
|
|
|
|
Trump's other, even BIGGER promises, based on his written platform and his past behavior include:
1. Immediately deporting 5% of the American workforce, causing massive economic upheaval and requiring a gigantic new national police force.
2. Declaring abortion to be murder in all 50 states, and prosecuting doctors, women who have, or attempt to have abortions, and anybody who assists anybody in having an abortion in any way, including the financing of abortions or the financing of trips outside of the US, which will necessarily mean massive crackdowns on all forms of payment that can evade the police, most notably... Bitcoin.
3. Rampant, overt and fully accepted corruption. Trump famously pardoned criminals who ripped off is own supporters. Trump has shown that he sees the presidency the way any criminal would, e.g. as a way to make himself money. And the most lucrative thing for Trump himself and for his close associates would be the make Bitcoin illegal so he could replace it with a currency they personally own in full.
Bitcoin went up 500% under president Biden. Don't mess with success! What we need is stability so we can all keep going forward with our plans to expand the market, not massive change that will throw everybody's plans out the window.
|
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
