IF the NSA wanted to take control over Bitcoin, how would they do it?

[SebastianJu]

They will need more hash power than the whole world mining today to do a 51% attack, which is probably nit gonna happen. There is no other way to block bitcoins.

No, that was what we believed at the start. But it proved to be a valid attack vector to attack bitcoin through it's client. Regardless of what the protocol will look like that will change the ways bitcoin goes. You could attack bitcoin through core devs or through alternative forking clients. It's best to do it both.

Yes, bitcoiners could chose, but be honest... most bitcoiners will use what is presented. Only a core of them will chose with some checking before.

I agree. Still I would like to know, if core team has already discussed this infiltration topic. If not ... then why not?

I'm not sure. The dev team was quite hidden for a long time. No real contact with the community. In my eyes that only changed after they wanted to bring out segwit and ln and found that they face a real big opposition. Then they started to argument and speak with the community alot more.

Though if you think about it... it does not need to be the NSA to harm the protocol, it can be the real world job of the developers or something similar that would not be allowed if they were politicians. It's not hard to find things that can be questioned.

[AGD]

They will need more hash power than the whole world mining today to do a 51% attack, which is probably nit gonna happen. There is no other way to block bitcoins.

No, that was what we believed at the start. But it proved to be a valid attack vector to attack bitcoin through it's client. Regardless of what the protocol will look like that will change the ways bitcoin goes. You could attack bitcoin through core devs or through alternative forking clients. It's best to do it both.

Yes, bitcoiners could chose, but be honest... most bitcoiners will use what is presented. Only a core of them will chose with some checking before.

I agree. Still I would like to know, if core team has already discussed this infiltration topic. If not ... then why not?

I'm not sure. The dev team was quite hidden for a long time. No real contact with the community. In my eyes that only changed after they wanted to bring out segwit and ln and found that they face a real big opposition. Then they started to argument and speak with the community alot more.

Though if you think about it... it does not need to be the NSA to harm the protocol, it can be the real world job of the developers or something similar that would not be allowed if they were politicians. It's not hard to find things that can be questioned.

gmaxwell made a posting here implying the infiltration of the Bitcoin Foundation, but he didn't answer if this topic (infiltration of core team) has been discussed by core devs already.
Though I agree, that it doesn't necessarily need some national agency to write bad code

[BlueTemplar]

Well, in their view it is not a big enough threat to attack and spend millions on gaining a majority of the hashing power.  Once it is determined to be a threat it will be too large for them to buy their way in to control.  Plus the second they gain control is when all of the money floods out of Bitcoin and in to a different crypto.  That is the beauty of it, we are not forced in to using the currency so attacking it results in wasted money as the users move out of Bitcoin and in to a different crypto-currency.

[SebastianJu]

Well, in their view it is not a big enough threat to attack and spend millions on gaining a majority of the hashing power.  Once it is determined to be a threat it will be too large for them to buy their way in to control.  Plus the second they gain control is when all of the money floods out of Bitcoin and in to a different crypto.  That is the beauty of it, we are not forced in to using the currency so attacking it results in wasted money as the users move out of Bitcoin and in to a different crypto-currency.

The agencies would have an interest to make bitcoin big. They can use it for their own operations if needed and they can follow the trail of the money. Since everyone know that, for example the nsa, controls the internet traffic of whole countries. So it would be not really hard to fight terrorism and similar things like that.

Well, pushing in bad code that is not found might be another nice gimmick but so far I think it was not successfull. Too many observe things closely.

[X badapple X]

Plus the second they gain control is when all of the money floods out of Bitcoin and in to a different crypto.

For money to "flood out," there'd have to be buyers, no? Who'd be interested in buying into a NSA property?

[Wendigo]

NSA or any other agency won't gain anything by destroying Bitcoin because it's not a threat to the national security of any country right now and I don't think it will be any time soon. Plus Bitcoin is open-source right? So any tampering with the source code or placing backdoors would be easily noticed wouldn't it?

[AGD]

NSA or any other agency won't gain anything by destroying Bitcoin because it's not a threat to the national security of any country right now and I don't think it will be any time soon. Plus Bitcoin is open-source right? So any tampering with the source code or placing backdoors would be easily noticed wouldn't it?

You really think, that a currency, that is openly competing against the USD and the banking system (and any other fiat) is not a thread? Not even after the USG has shutdown the Paypal account of Wikileaks and they started to accept Bitcoin afterwards? Not even after the SilkRoad case?

Check this:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1462981.msg14768412#msg14768412

[Bit_Happy]

IF the NSA wanted to take control over Bitcoin, how would they do it?
They would create a group of coders with the secret code name "SATOSHI" and (pretending to be a 'libertarian') release the code in 2009..... lol?

[AGD]

Well, in their view it is not a big enough threat to attack and spend millions on gaining a majority of the hashing power.  Once it is determined to be a threat it will be too large for them to buy their way in to control.  Plus the second they gain control is when all of the money floods out of Bitcoin and in to a different crypto.  That is the beauty of it, we are not forced in to using the currency so attacking it results in wasted money as the users move out of Bitcoin and in to a different crypto-currency.

You make the 3 letter guys look like idiots.

[AGD]

Well, in their view it is not a big enough threat to attack and spend millions on gaining a majority of the hashing power.  Once it is determined to be a threat it will be too large for them to buy their way in to control.  Plus the second they gain control is when all of the money floods out of Bitcoin and in to a different crypto.  That is the beauty of it, we are not forced in to using the currency so attacking it results in wasted money as the users move out of Bitcoin and in to a different crypto-currency.

The agencies would have an interest to make bitcoin big. They can use it for their own operations if needed and they can follow the trail of the money. Since everyone know that, for example the nsa, controls the internet traffic of whole countries. So it would be not really hard to fight terrorism and similar things like that.

Well, pushing in bad code that is not found might be another nice gimmick but so far I think it was not successfull. Too many observe things closely.

The idea of inserting "bad code" under the eyes of everyone is not new:

+1 because thanks to Gavn, we have a scenario, where exacty this reverse exploit could be implemented. Please core devs: Don't let it happen!

http://blogs.msdn.com/b/vcblog/archive/2014/02/04/challenge-vulnerable-code.aspx
http://www.underhanded-c.org/_p_26.html

This challenge appeared on an internal alias dedicated to C++. It was issued by Mike Vine, a developer here at Microsoft who agreed to let us share it with the mighty Visual C++ blog readers:

This challenge came from me thinking about a simple bug which could be turned into a security vulnerability, so I thought I’d give it a go and try to code a plausibly deniable piece of code which looks innocent but is actually dangerous. I managed to actually go further than that, and produced something, that whilst unlikely, could possibly have come from non-malicious but sloppy coding.

So your challenge is – if you choose to accept it – analyze the sample code file “main.c” (attached) and try to find the (fairly obvious) security faux pas and ‘accidental’ bug which causes the security faux pas to be exploitable.

The 7th Underhanded C Contest is now open.

The goal of the contest is to write code that is as readable, clear, innocent and straightforward as possible, and yet it must fail to perform at its apparent function. To be more specific, it should do something subtly evil. Every year, we will propose a challenge to coders to solve a simple data processing problem, but with covert malicious behavior. Examples include miscounting votes, shaving money from financial transactions, or leaking information to an eavesdropper. The main goal, however, is to write source code that easily passes visual inspection by other programmers.

[SebastianJu]

NSA or any other agency won't gain anything by destroying Bitcoin because it's not a threat to the national security of any country right now and I don't think it will be any time soon. Plus Bitcoin is open-source right? So any tampering with the source code or placing backdoors would be easily noticed wouldn't it?

The NSA works for the interest of the USA. Which means theoretically the USA would need the control over their money because controlling it gives power over the economy.

If someone would take this out of their hands then be sure that they would fight really hard.

[AGD]

Amir Taaki is back:

https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/4is23k/two_posts_by_amir_taaki_about_gavin_may_8_2016/

[DimensionZ]

I agree that if the price of Bitcoin gets huge at some point in the future the NSA or other agency may try to intervene and take control of the Bitcoin network in the name of the US government. But doesn't the strength of Bitcoin depend on its user base? So if people can see that someone is trying to disrupt the Bitcoin network everyone will pull out of the crypto and its value will plummet in hours. What is the US government going to do with a defunct crypto coin then?

[Blacula X]

... So if people can see that someone is trying to disrupt the Bitcoin network everyone will pull out of the crypto and its value will plummet in hours.

For anyone to "pull out," there must be someone to "pull in." How are you going to sell coins that no one wants to buy? And to whom?

[centralbanksequalsbombs]

Well, in their view it is not a big enough threat to attack and spend millions on gaining a majority of the hashing power.  Once it is determined to be a threat it will be too large for them to buy their way in to control.  Plus the second they gain control is when all of the money floods out of Bitcoin and in to a different crypto.  That is the beauty of it, we are not forced in to using the currency so attacking it results in wasted money as the users move out of Bitcoin and in to a different crypto-currency.

The agencies would have an interest to make bitcoin big. They can use it for their own operations if needed and they can follow the trail of the money. Since everyone know that, for example the nsa, controls the internet traffic of whole countries. So it would be not really hard to fight terrorism and similar things like that.

Well, pushing in bad code that is not found might be another nice gimmick but so far I think it was not successfull. Too many observe things closely.

The idea of inserting "bad code" under the eyes of everyone is not new:

+1 because thanks to Gavn, we have a scenario, where exacty this reverse exploit could be implemented. Please core devs: Don't let it happen!

http://blogs.msdn.com/b/vcblog/archive/2014/02/04/challenge-vulnerable-code.aspx
http://www.underhanded-c.org/_p_26.html

This challenge appeared on an internal alias dedicated to C++. It was issued by Mike Vine, a developer here at Microsoft who agreed to let us share it with the mighty Visual C++ blog readers:

This challenge came from me thinking about a simple bug which could be turned into a security vulnerability, so I thought I’d give it a go and try to code a plausibly deniable piece of code which looks innocent but is actually dangerous. I managed to actually go further than that, and produced something, that whilst unlikely, could possibly have come from non-malicious but sloppy coding.

So your challenge is – if you choose to accept it – analyze the sample code file “main.c” (attached) and try to find the (fairly obvious) security faux pas and ‘accidental’ bug which causes the security faux pas to be exploitable.

The 7th Underhanded C Contest is now open.

The goal of the contest is to write code that is as readable, clear, innocent and straightforward as possible, and yet it must fail to perform at its apparent function. To be more specific, it should do something subtly evil. Every year, we will propose a challenge to coders to solve a simple data processing problem, but with covert malicious behavior. Examples include miscounting votes, shaving money from financial transactions, or leaking information to an eavesdropper. The main goal, however, is to write source code that easily passes visual inspection by other programmers.

Your posts and questions you pose to the community here are invaluable and hope to see more in the future. Unless if you are me, are you me? Then I guess I would need to post...Or are you Satoshi?



anyways thank you for finding my post and commenting, good to know old-timers are paying attention in the forums.
(re my post: "Hacks Puppets and Forks: How to destory bitcoin") https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1834310.0

[dinofelis]

It is extremely easy for any big central bank to take over any collectible.  The only thing that is needed, is that there's a legal frame in which the central bank is allowed to buy said asset as a backing.  Central banks are fairly restricted in the kinds of assets they may buy up to deliver printed fiat, but if bitcoin is part of that list, then that central bank can just print as much money as needed to buy up the stash of bitcoin it needs.   The reason for that is that the more bitcoin is worth, the that banks' backing allows it to print money to buy it.

As such, that central bank can pump up the price of said asset sky high, and print the necessary money to buy whatever it needs without real economic costs.  In other words, a central bank can corner any market of finite supply.  Once she's done that, slowly enough for enough OTHER people to buy a fair amount of bitcoin, she dumps it like crazy, crashes the market, and makes all those invested in it totally burned.  If that didn't cut it, rinse and repeat. 

Central banks cannot do this to other currencies, because other currencies are elastic too and cannot be cornered.  But collectibles are easily cornered by a central bank.

As long as a central bank is not legally allowed to buy coins, it cannot happen, but once an asset is declared suitable as a backing for a central bank, she can totally master the asset (unless she enters in competition with a foreign central bank doing the same of course).

[becoin]

  In other words, a central bank can corner any market of finite supply. 

Bitcoin is of finite supply. Why banks can't corner bitcoin market yet?

[dinofelis]

  In other words, a central bank can corner any market of finite supply. 

Bitcoin is of finite supply. Why banks can't corner bitcoin market yet?

Not banks.  Central banks.   Well, first of all they should have a motivation - I was just answering the OP.  But they also should be legally allowed to do so (that is, have bitcoin on the list of assets they can buy, like they can buy gold, and certain securities).  I don't think any big central bank is allowed to emit money against bitcoin yet.

[RodeoX]

Page 8 and no plausible method. 

[GetClams.com]

NSA or any other agency won't gain anything by destroying Bitcoin because it's not a threat to the national security of any country right now and I don't think it will be any time soon. Plus Bitcoin is open-source right? So any tampering with the source code or placing backdoors would be easily noticed wouldn't it?

Abslutley! it would be an exercise in futility for any government to try and manipulate bitcoin.  The genie is out of the bottle nad now we are in control.