MIT ChainAnchor - Bribing Miners to Regulate Bitcoin

[LiteCoinGuy]

MIT ChainAnchor - Bribing Miners to Regulate Bitcoin

Based on the information I have available to me, it appears that the MIT ChainAnchor Project is in part an attempt to get Bitcoin users to register their real world identities and associate their transactions with those identities. Initially this would be on an opt-in basis, however it appears that ChainAnchor has a longer-term plan to bribe and coerce miners into only mining transactions from registered users, eventually prohibiting non-registered users entirely.

https://petertodd.org/2016/mit-chainanchor-bribing-miners-to-regulate-bitcoin

[Denker]

Bastards!!!
So another attempt to undermine Bitcoin right.
Wow! They're really scared and pissed.
Would really like to know who are these prominent Bitcoin members who play a wrong game with us, the whole community!!

[ebliever]

If they pulled this off they would only destroy bitcoin, leading to other cryptos taking over in popularity and usage.

[Carlton Banks]

I wouldn't worry Denker, it's more cat and mouse stuff. Any miner that complies will end up mining nothing; novel cryptography (ZKP or SNARKS or something similar) can almost certainly be implemented in a way where public keys cannot be read directly, and so neither the user nor the miner would posses the information needed to make "ideas" like this work. Then, it's yet another case of "your move, dickhead"

[eternalgloom]

If this becomes reality, I'd be switching to another coin immediately, I wonder if something like this will be mandatory in the future when using Bitcoin.
I can perfectly imagine the government requiring you to first register to be able to use Bitcoin.

[unamis76]

If this is true than we just have to nuke this out of the solar system. What the hell is wrong with MIT? Just build your own blockchain and good luck.

Create an opt-in registration system that allows participating users to register their wallet addresses (pubkeys) with their real-world identity

I seriously don't know who would fall for this to begin with.

I’ve obtained leaked copies

I'm glad he did

They also alleged that prominent members of the Bitcoin community are involved in the project

[hmmmstrange]

Just ignore ChainAnchor mined blocks. Let the blockchain fork.

[Meuh6879]

good luck to map quadrimillion adresses ...  and follow the tracks of erased traces in the exchange.

[alani123]

Sounds like a significant leak, grats on Peter Todd for this relase.

[BitUsher]

I wouldn't worry Denker, it's more cat and mouse stuff. Any miner that complies will end up mining nothing; novel cryptography (ZKP or SNARKS or something similar) can almost certainly be implemented in a way where public keys cannot be read directly, and so neither the user nor the miner would posses the information needed to make "ideas" like this work. Then, it's yet another case of "your move, dickhead"

While you are quite correct with the available workarounds, we need to also send a strong message to any person, state or business that this behavior should not be tolerated .

These people have a lot of explaining to do and should be thoroughly ashamed-

Thomas Hardjono
MIT Internet Trust Consortium
Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Cambridge, MA 02139, USA
Email: hardjono@mit.edu

Ned Smith
Intel Corporation
MS:JF1-255, 2111 NE 25th Ave
Hillsboro, OR 97124
Email: ned.smith@intel.com

Alex (Sandy) Pentland
MIT Media Lab
Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Cambridge, MA 02139, USA
Email: sandy@media.mit.edu

[Yakamoto]

Well, as long as the miners remember that the money from this isn't as good as the money over the long term, I doubt we'll start seeing people start to switch over.

Hell, I don't think any of the community will switch over, they'll opt to abandon the service altogether.

[7788bitcoin]

Does that mean Satoshi's 1M BTC will become useless if he never ever reveal his identity?

[Hazir]

Does that mean Satoshi's 1M BTC will become useless if he never ever reveal his identity?

Interesting analogy. But I don't think it is relevant to the case now.
I was telling you guys that the best way to regulate bitcoin will be through implementation of mining licenses and/or regulation of mining hardware.
It is the most efficient way to subjugate bitcoiners. And this scenario is now happening? Call me a prophet.

[Denker]

I wouldn't worry Denker, it's more cat and mouse stuff. Any miner that complies will end up mining nothing; novel cryptography (ZKP or SNARKS or something similar) can almost certainly be implemented in a way where public keys cannot be read directly, and so neither the user nor the miner would posses the information needed to make "ideas" like this work. Then, it's yet another case of "your move, dickhead"

Sure you are right.
But it still pisses me off that we have people in our community, prominent members as Peter said, that give a shit about privacy and freedom.
The question I ask myself is, do these guys had been like that from the beginning? That would mean they would be something like a trojan horse. Or do they became weak, open for a bribe and other promises, lost their ideals for whatever reason?

[pedrog]

I assume this will be even easier to do with Lightning Network, even if they cannot force/bribe miners to do this they surely can do it for companies running Lightning Network and the small number and expensive on-chain transactions will be irrelevant, correct?

[Carlton Banks]

I assume this will be even easier to do with Lightning Network, even if they cannot force/bribe miners to do this they surely can do it for companies running Lightning Network and the small number and expensive on-chain transactions will be irrelevant, correct?

I'm not sure about that, to my mind it would be the opposite: the big miners are easy to identify due to the significant hardware requirements (and everything that hardware itself requires...), but being a high throughput Lightning channel requires no more hardware than is needed to run a Bitcoin node today. How can the Lightning channel owners be identified if the channels are decentralised, self-organising, and the owner obscures their IP?

[pedrog]

I assume this will be even easier to do with Lightning Network, even if they cannot force/bribe miners to do this they surely can do it for companies running Lightning Network and the small number and expensive on-chain transactions will be irrelevant, correct?

I'm not sure about that, to my mind it would be the opposite: the big miners are easy to identify due to the significant hardware requirements (and everything that hardware itself requires...), but being a high throughput Lightning channel requires no more hardware than is needed to run a Bitcoin node today. How can the Lightning channel owners be identified if the channels are decentralised, self-organising, and the owner obscures their IP?

Because it requires a shit load of bitcoins, I assume only exchanges will run such channels, at least the relevant ones.

What's the biggest percentage of the network do you think a single miner has? 5%?

[Carlton Banks]

Because it requires a shit load of bitcoins, I assume only exchanges will run such channels, at least the relevant ones.

Well, that assumes the exchanges are the biggest holders, but remember the blockchain tells us that the majority of Bitcoins are not being traded or transferred at all. My bets would be that wealthy early adopters or some of the big DN marketplaces would be equal or bigger players than the exchanges, and all this assumes that Lightning channels will elicit a centralising phenomenon, which is not necessarily so. The political environment (of which your scenario is only one possible example) will partly determine the way in which these Lightning channels become arrayed, the underlying design doesn't necessarily force any particular outcome.

What's the biggest percentage of the network do you think a single miner has? 5%?

I think it's higher, probably closer to 15% or 20%

[pedrog]

Because it requires a shit load of bitcoins, I assume only exchanges will run such channels, at least the relevant ones.

Well, that assumes the exchanges are the biggest holders, but remember the blockchain tells us that the majority of Bitcoins are not being traded or transferred at all. My bets would be that wealthy early adopters or some of the big DN marketplaces would be equal or bigger players than the exchanges, and all this assumes that Lightning channels will elicit a centralising phenomenon, which is not necessarily so. The political environment (of which your scenario is only one possible example) will partly determine the way in which these Lightning channels become arrayed, the underlying design doesn't necessarily force any particular outcome.

Doesn't make it better, still middle man, still centralized.

What's the biggest percentage of the network do you think a single miner has? 5%?

I think it's higher, probably closer to 15% or 20%

I find that hard to believe, is there anything to support that?

[road to morocco]

...
While you are quite correct with the available workarounds, we need to also send a strong message to any person, state or business that this behavior should not be tolerated .

To: State of Rhode Island
From: Anon
Subject: Son, I Am Disappoint.

These people have a lot of explaining to do and should be thoroughly ashamed-

Thomas Hardjono
MIT Internet Trust Consortium
Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Cambridge, MA 02139, USA
Email: hardjono@mit.edu

Ned Smith
Intel Corporation
MS:JF1-255, 2111 NE 25th Ave
Hillsboro, OR 97124
Email: ned.smith@intel.com

Alex (Sandy) Pentland
MIT Media Lab
Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Cambridge, MA 02139, USA
Email: sandy@media.mit.edu

So... send them strongly-worded emails?