Bitcoin is not as advertised

[tentative]

Hi all,

Having studied Bitcoin in depth for a long time,
I've come to realize the following:

Bitcoin is not peer-to-peer.
The consensus block chain is determined more by the official node implementation than by the individual nodes.
If ever you stop updating your software to the latest version, you rapidly become vulnerable to attack. This will never change.
If you implement your own node, you have to choose between:
1. Agreeing to be dictated the "consensus" block chain by the official release.
2. Being vulnerable to attack

I'm willing to back these allegations with proof.
The question is, is anyone interested?

[grondilu]

Hi all,

Having studied Bitcoin in depth for a long time,
I've come to realize the following:

Bitcoin is not peer-to-peer.
The consensus block chain is determined more by the official node implementation than by the individual nodes.
If ever you stop updating your software to the latest version, you rapidly become vulnerable to attack. This will never change.
If you implement your own node, you have to choose between:
1. Agreeing to be dictated the "consensus" block chain by the official release.
2. Being vulnerable to attack

I'm willing to back these allegations with proof.
The question is, is anyone interested?

Behind the concept of "money", there is necessarly some kind of a "consensus".  The current block chain is accepted because it is the longest one in existence.

The software could easily be modified to accept an other block chain.  So if you can build a longer block chain, I will accept to buy some of your "coins" and I'd use a modified version of the software to do so.  But it would be extremely difficult for you to build such a chain, since it would require a huge amount of CPU.  You could not do this alone.  Nobody could.

[tentative]

Behind the concept of "money", there is necessarly some kind of a "consensus".  The current block chain is accepted because it is the longest one in existence.

If you can build a longer block chain, I will accept to buy it.  But it woudl be extremely difficult for you, since it would require a huge amount of CPU.

I understand what you say perfectly well.
You're mostly correct for the first part.
For the second part, you quote what's been advertised.
Unfortunately, it's false.

I can, in fact, generate a longer block chain.
If you have a recent official release, you will not accept it, because "they" dictate your block chain.
If you don't, I can attack you.

[bober182]

He could if he lowers the production of a block to 1000 an hour or some other higher value, and then increases the total amount of bitcoins to match. Keeping the ratio the same the amount of blocks. The blocks will go up but not the amount of coin % generated.

[grondilu]

I can, in fact, generate a longer block chain.

Please do so and thus prove us wrong.

[ShadowOfHarbringer]

you will not accept it, because "they" dictate your block chain.

I don't think You get the whole concept of open source properly.

In open source there is no "they", no entity that you could say "runs" the buisness.
Open source is governed by consensus of programmers, hackers, mathematicans & other geeky people involved in the project.

If one day satoshi says "ok guys, it was just a joke with this bitcoin thing, i'm closing down the project", then we (the hackers) would simply fork the code, move to another forum, and pick up where we left here. Bitcoin would stay as it was or in a little modified form.

There is no single mastermind in Open Source. It's more of a brain where a single human is just a cell. Also, bitcoin works as it works and has the block chain it has, because people involved with the project want it. If somebody doesn't like it, he can start his own project.

----
EDIT:
Also, if you don't like what we are doing with the bitcoin or block chain, then start your own fork of bitcoin. Nobody forbids it.

[tentative]

I can, in fact, generate a longer block chain.

Please do so and thus prove us wrong.

That's a healthy approach, but may I suggest a better one.

Allow me to save days of coding and weeks of number crunching by simply explaining what it is I could do.
I'd be glad to disclose this to the right audience at the right opportunity.

However, that's not the real issue here.
The issue is that there are multiple problems with the current design and implementation of bitcoin.
I can name at least 4 or 5 now.

I think we can fix this.
We can take bitcoin from the proof-of-concept stage to a real system that works.
What I'm trying to do here is find enough people who are interested in doing that.

[kiba]

I think we can fix this.
We can take bitcoin from the proof-of-concept stage to a real system that works.
What I'm trying to do here is find enough people who are interested in doing that.

It works well enough for me.

[Anonymous]

I can, in fact, generate a longer block chain.

Please do so and thus prove us wrong.

That's a healthy approach, but may I suggest a better one.

Allow me to save days of coding and weeks of number crunching by simply explaining what it is I could do.
I'd be glad to disclose this to the right audience at the right opportunity.

However, that's not the real issue here.
The issue is that there are multiple problems with the current design and implementation of bitcoin.
I can name at least 4 or 5 now.

I think we can fix this.
We can take bitcoin from the proof-of-concept stage to a real system that works.
What I'm trying to do here is find enough people who are interested in doing that.

irc://freenode/bitcoin-dev

Feel free to chat on the dev channel tentative. If you've found some kind of flaw or bug it would be great if you could let them know first.

[tentative]

you will not accept it, because "they" dictate your block chain.

I don't think You get the whole concept of open source properly.

In open source there is no "they", no entity that you could say "runs" the buisness.
Open source is governed by consensus of programmers, hackers, mathematicans & other geeky people involved in the project.

If one day satoshi says "ok guys, it was just a joke with this bitcoin thing, i'm closing down the project", then we (the hackers) would simply fork the code, move to another forum, and pick up where we left here. Bitcoin would stay as it was or in a little modified form.

There is no single mastermind in Open Source. It's more of a brain where a single human is just a cell. Also, bitcoin works as it works and has the block chain it has, because people involved with the project want it. If somebody doesn't like it, he can start his own project.

----
EDIT:
Also, if you don't like what we are doing with the bitcoin or block chain, then start your own fork of bitcoin. Nobody forbids it.

The "they" part was a bit tongue-in-cheek.
Sorry.

Yes, I know what open source is.
Just to prove that, I took the pain of navigating http://bitcoin.svn.sourceforge.net/viewvc/bitcoin/trunk/main.cpp?view=log
to find out that the code in question was indeed added by s_nakamoto.

This code prevents nodes from accepting a chain that is valid in every way and longest,
simply based on the fact that it's not the "official" chain.
Prior to that code being added, I guess the network was indeed vulnerable to the attack vector I found.
It will be once again, if ever the chain stops being dictated.
If you have forks that don't contain that code, you are vulnerable.

Finally, the reason I'm not just stepping in and fixing it myself is that the issues I found require more than just some patching.
We must redesign the whole thing from the ground up.

So do you think anyone here will be willing to do that?

[bober182]

I don't see what your arguing you said bitcoin is not peer 2 peer or p2p.

Peer-to-peer (P2P) computing or networking is a distributed application architecture that partitions tasks or work loads between peers. Peers are equally privileged, equipotent participants in the application. They are said to form a peer-to-peer network of nodes.

Peers make a portion of their resources, such as processing power, disk storage or network bandwidth, directly available to other network participants, without the need for central coordination by servers or stable hosts. Peers are both suppliers and consumers of resources, in contrast to the traditional client–server model where only servers supply, and clients consume.

Clearly it is your stating that someone controls what block chain is used and that is not true you choose the block chain you want. Each block chain is a market. If you choose an attacking chain like yours you a joining a market where you will lose bitcoins.

[davout]

I can, in fact, generate a longer block chain.
If you have a recent official release, you will not accept it, because "they" dictate your block chain.
If you don't, I can attack you.

I'm interested, now prove it, code is public, point out the lines, in my understanding the longest blockchain wins since it has the most expensive proof of work.

Allow me to save days of coding and weeks of number crunching by simply explaining what it is I could do.

Do it.

The issue is that there are multiple problems with the current design and implementation of bitcoin.
I can name at least 4 or 5 now.

Do it.

I think we can fix this.

Fix what ?

What I'm trying to do here is find enough people who are interested in doing that.

Why not, i bet lots of people would be interested in protecting their assets or be the first ones to start generating in a "fixed" bitcoin brand new blockchain.

Now facts please.

[tentative]

I don't see what your arguing you said bitcoin is not peer 2 peer or p2p.

Peer-to-peer (P2P) computing or networking is a distributed application architecture that partitions tasks or work loads between peers. Peers are equally privileged, equipotent participants in the application. They are said to form a peer-to-peer network of nodes.

Peers make a portion of their resources, such as processing power, disk storage or network bandwidth, directly available to other network participants, without the need for central coordination by servers or stable hosts. Peers are both suppliers and consumers of resources, in contrast to the traditional client–server model where only servers supply, and clients consume.

Clearly it is your stating that someone controls what block chain is used and that is not true you choose the block chain you want. Each block chain is a market. If you choose an attacking chain like yours you a joining a market where you will lose bitcoins.

Let's put it this way:

Suppose I change the code so that the only chain accepted is one in which I have all the money.
Then when the next version is release and everybody updates, the consensus is that I have all the money.
Would that be fair? Of course not.
I'm sure the other developers won't let that happen. They would revert my changes.

The point is that this is exactly what s_nakamoto did!
Well, except for the "have all the money" part...
I imagine he did this with the longest chain that was present on his node at some time.
And that makes his node unequally privileged and potent, to address your wikipedia-inspired definition.

[grondilu]

I still would like to see tentative explain me how he could create a chain of 90,000 proofs of work with the same difficulties that are inside the current block chain, and then be faster than the current bitcoin network, so that he could always make sure his chain is longer than the bitcoin one.

[theymos]

When the checkpoint lockin system was implemented (a while ago), everyone had the opportunity to check that the included hash was correct. If it was not, no one would have updated and the change would have been rejected. Satoshi proposed a change, the participants voted with their CPUs, and the change was passed.

Obviously few people checked. They trust Satoshi and the other members of the community enough to take them at their word.

The checkpoint system is only "insurance" against unknown attacks. There are no known attacks that are prevented only by the checkpoints. So you can safely remove it if you want.

[tentative]

When the checkpoint lockin system was implemented (a while ago), everyone had the opportunity to check that the included hash was correct. If it was not, no one would have updated and the change would have been rejected. Satoshi proposed a change, the participants voted with their CPUs, and the change was passed.

Obviously few people checked. They trust Satoshi and the other members of the community enough to take them at their word.

The checkpoint system is only "insurance" against unknown attacks. There are no known attacks that are prevented only by the checkpoints. So you can safely remove it if you want.

Are you willing to bet your wallet on that?
Let's remove it then!

[theymos]

Are you willing to bet your wallet on that?
Let's remove it then!

Clearly I am willing to bet my Bitcoin balance on the security of the system. There's no way to generate a longer chain without expending more CPU power than the current chain did, even without the checkpoints.

Feel free to make a different version with stupid rules. No one will use it.

[tentative]

Are you willing to bet your wallet on that?
Let's remove it then!

Clearly I am willing to bet my Bitcoin balance on the security of the system.

Feel free to make a different version with stupid rules. No one will use it.

And what if I make a different version with better rules?
Will you use it?

[theymos]

And what if I make a different version with better rules?
Will you use it?

I will if the changes are compatible with Bitcoin.

More importantly: I will not use versions of Bitcoin that have stupid rules.

[Anonymous]

Are you willing to bet your wallet on that?
Let's remove it then!

Clearly I am willing to bet my Bitcoin balance on the security of the system.

Feel free to make a different version with stupid rules. No one will use it.

And what if I make a different version with better rules?
Will you use it?

Only if the code is open completely. You havent explained anything clearly at all but are skirting around the issues. You still havent approached the devs on irc either. Unless you are merely using FUD to try and suppress prices on the market ....thats always a possibilty I suppose.