MIT announces 4-year project that seeks to strengthen the Bitcoin Network Sec.

[AGD]

Good or bad?


https://thedailychain.com/mit-announces-4-year-project-that-seeks-to-strengthen-the-bitcoin-network-security/

The security of the Bitcoin network has been criticized on several occasions, but the flagship cryptocurrency remains unscathed. However, innovations continue and crypto industry leaders are now supporting an initiative from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology’s (MIT) Digital Currency Initiative (DCI) that seeks to enhance the bitcoin network’s security.

Dubbed the “Bitcoin Software and Security Effort,” the open-source initiative will promote research that strengthens the Bitcoin network’s defenses. The efforts are being backed by crypto industry leaders like Gemini’s Cameron and Tyler Winklevoss, MicroStrategy’s CEO Michael Saylor, Square CEO Jack Dorsey, and major European digital asset manager, CoinShares.

In its blog post the DCI outline that Bitcoin’s growth from an “obscure cryptographic toy” to a robust network that “secures on the order of $1 [trillion] of value” was the result of millions of hours invested into developing the blockchain network by open-source developers.

To support this initiative, Coinshares has announced a $500,000 donation to the project. The company’s chief executive Jean-Marie Mognetti has urged other crypto companies to follow.

    “As a beneficiary of the work of hundreds of developers who secure, upgrade, and maintain the open-source protocols that underlie the Bitcoin network and the applications built on top of it, we believe for-profit firms in the digital asset industry have an obligation to fund independent, neutral development efforts and research that advances the mutual interest of all ecosystem participants.”

The four-year research and development program expects to “harden the Bitcoin network and steward the industry’s commitment to funding open-source software,” the announcement added. A part of the post reads:

    “The objective of DCI’s new program is to contribute neutral, expert resources to improving the robustness of the Bitcoin protocol. Bitcoin’s security is foundational to the underlying technology’s continued evolution, as well as the broad realization of the public-good promises of digital currencies.”

The announcement outlined various issues that MIT seeks to address. Some of these include sustaining a senior team of Bitcoin developers, exploring new programming languages, and pre-emptive investigations against possible attacks.

MIT has also stressed that the network’s security must be strengthened, citing increasing adoption, noting the various challenges associated with coordinating a decentralized network:

    “Unlike traditional assets, Bitcoin is software running on a decentralized network. Bitcoin’s security is predicated on the accuracy and robustness of the software and hardware running it, and the actions of those participating in the network.”

Risks amplify

Previously, DCI researcher James Lovejoy has voiced concerns regarding the risks of a 51% attack. He believes the changes of a bad actor capturing a majority share of nodes and controlling the bitcoin network could be much more plausible than previously thought. Hence, he has stressed the need for active blockchain monitoring:

    “You need an active observer to be monitoring the network to check whether or not an attack occurs.”

    “Up until now, we’ve been reliant on victims to tell us about whether they’ve been attacked. As you can imagine, if this results in insolvency or a loss of user funds, victims are often not super interested in revealing when an attack has taken place,” he added.

[Charles-Tim]

The security of the Bitcoin network has been criticized on several occasions

It is normal to critize anything open source, but the true design of Bitcoin makes 51% attack not to have occurred.

“The objective of DCI’s new program is to contribute neutral, expert resources to improving the robustness of the Bitcoin protocol.

I do not think so, as miners are increasing mining hashes, that is one aspect of the security. Also as miners from China is reducing drastically, 75% miners are from China in 2019 which reduced to 65% in 2020, let us still expect it to reduce further as miners in USA are increase while some governments are getting friendly to Bitcoin mining. Even the Belarusian government wants to fully support bitcoin mining.

MIT has also stressed that the network’s security must be strengthened

How is bitcoin network going to be strengthen? All they can do is to buy more miners and mine out of China. Bitcoin network is already strengthened. If miners increase, the network will also be strengthened.

Previously, DCI researcher James Lovejoy has voiced concerns regarding the risks of a 51% attack.

They are making statememts on 51% but has never happened before, when bitcoin blockchain was not as strong as this, no 51% attack occured. And now, no 51% attack that will occur.

You need an active observer to be monitoring the network to check whether or not an attack occurs.”

There are many people in bitcoin community monitoring this without help needed, but if others like, they can join to help, but they should know that bitcoin is not just alive today without no 51% attack before, bitcoin has a strong community.

[AGD]

How is bitcoin network going to be strengthen? All they can do is to buy more miners and mine out of China. Bitcoin network is already strengthened. If miners increase, the network will also be strengthened.

I guess they are talking about to support Bitcoin devs with 'experts', which could rather mean another try to take control over Bitcoin. This time by pushing out unpaid autistic developers and introduce paid and biased ones.

[NotATether]

I believe this news is referring to safeguarding bitcoin wallets from being stolen. The majority of this money likely won't be used on Bitcoin Core itself but on systems of hot wallets that are targeted by hackers using vulnerabilities in other software that happens to be running on them.

“Up until now, we’ve been reliant on victims to tell us about whether they’ve been attacked. As you can imagine, if this results in insolvency or a loss of user funds, victims are often not super interested in revealing when an attack has taken place,” he added.

There's nothing just can really be improved at the protocol level so I'm sure this fund will be used for improving exchange security, online bitcoin businesses' security etc. not personal security like fixing vulnerabilities in Electrum.

[ranochigo]

It is normal to critize anything open source, but the true design of Bitcoin makes 51% attack not to have occurred.

What? Bitcoin functions on the economics of game theory to ensure that 51% attacks are infeasible.
I can't really see anything bad that could affect Bitcoin. At best, they could contribute actively to Bitcoin development and at worst nothing happens. As for the 51% monitor (or rather double spend/forks), here it is: https://forkmonitor.info/nodes/btc.

[Charles-Tim]

What? Bitcoin functions on the economics of game theory to ensure that 51% attacks are infeasible.

Exactly what I meant, but it is normal to critize the network, but the criticism are not true. Also, bitcoin itself is said to be ponzi and all sort of things like that, all because it is open source. If it is close source like the monetary system that is centralized, it will not be critizied because they think govements will protect such but not knowing it is not perfect as open source and decentralized like bitcoin specifically. Check my quotes above to get the total picture of my post.

[ranochigo]

Exactly what I meant, but it is normal to critize the network, but the criticism are not true. Also, bitcoin itself is said to be ponzi and all sort of things like that, all because it is open source. If it is close source like the monetary system that is centralized, it will not be critizied because they think govements will protect such but not knowing it is not perfect as open source and decentralized like bitcoin specifically. Check my quotes above to get the total picture of my post.

It's a blanket statement to dismiss it as untrue. Bitcoin does have its merits as a decentralized network but there's obviously a lot of work to be done. A 51% attack is not the focus of the project but to explore the other possible vulnerabilities regarding the protocol itself. Mining will never decentralized, at its current stage. Barring the Chinese government banning Bitcoin mining completely, it is impossible for them to not hold a majority of it; most ASIC manufacturers are based in China and the cost of mining is probably much lower there as well.

Obviously 51% attack is not economically viable if you were to just own the hardware and operate the ASICs yourself. The article doesn't dispute that but rather it was calling for a monitor *in the event* that it happens, which is completely rational. Bitcoin being open source doesn't mean that it won't have any vulnerabilities which I presume is what this is set up for. I don't think any of the statements mentioned in the article are unfounded, might be getting a bit offtopic with your replies here.

[amishmanish]

Previously, DCI researcher James Lovejoy has voiced concerns regarding the risks of a 51% attack.

They are making statememts on 51% but has never happened before, when bitcoin blockchain was not as strong as this, no 51% attack occured. And now, no 51% attack that will occur.

It is kindda delusional to think that something like a 51% attack can never happen. The possibilities of a capture and destroy strategy from the governments can never completely ignored. This may happen if those in power are not getting the right picture. Most of the times, the picture is painted by Academics and Private institutions with deep pockets that fund them. Due to this, an initiative from DCI is a plus. What is harder to discern is whether this "support" to strengthen the network is also about changing the way Bitcoin functions, so that it becomes more pliant to what the authorities want??

Remember how the govt agencies asked for help from open source community to trace Monero transactions?

So even though the academic interest is welcome, the Open Source developer community becomes all the more important to ensure that the narratives is not controlled by only the elite institutions.

[buwaytress]

New names coming to the fore, but such is what must be expected with all this talk of "institutional interest" that those institutions will attempt to exert whatever influence they can or at least to attempt to safeguard their interests. I suppose it's about time we've got new suits and ties alongside Blockchain Foundation and Blockstream. Been a while.

It is funny to see some of their concerns though as OP points out... they really think without their altruism, no one is "actively monitoring" the network? Ha.