Israeli Bitcoin Association Statement about Hashrate Attacks

[Meni Rosenfeld]

http://www.bitcoin.org.il/files/IBA_Statement-Hashrate_Attacks.pdf

"
We, the Israeli Bitcoin Association, pursue the goal of maximizing the benefit that Israel’s population obtain from the Bitcoin technology - which strongly depends on Bitcoin’s worldwide success.

We believe that, as a currency, Bitcoin is subject to the network effect, and that it is strongest when its community and industry, brought together by both ideology and practicality, are united in a single network; and that rifts and separation should be avoided if at all possible.

We also believe that Bitcoin is voluntary money; people use it because they choose to, not because they are coerced. As such, people can also choose to fork Bitcoin’s open source code and use an alternative currency with similar underlying principles.

We recognize that there may be different views about what Bitcoin is, and a time may come where those differences cannot be reconciled. It might then be unavoidable to experience a split of the currency into two separate networks, each sharing a blockchain history and - at least temporarily - the Bitcoin brand.

We believe that all these different currencies have a right to coexist peacefully and compete fairly. We oppose any attempt of supporters of one currency to inflict damage on a different currency, in a way which achieves no purpose other than denying others the right to use the currency of their choice.

It saddens us that lately we have heard people planning just such attacks. In particular, in the event of a split of the Bitcoin network to two, both using the same PoW hash function, proponents of the network with majority hashrate might exploit known vulnerabilities of the Bitcoin protocol against the smaller network - such as the well-known >50% attack or a more sophisticated attack commonly known as “selfish mining”. By mining malicious blocks in secret (which double-spend or deny service) and releasing them strategically, they can effectively erase blocks mined by the honest network, and render the currency unusable.

We believe such attacks are in stark opposition to Bitcoin’s spirit and we condemn anyone who supports them. We invite others to publicly condemn and shun these deplorable, hostile plans.

We believe that in so doing, we can help promote a healthier atmosphere, where would-be attackers realize they would only ostracize themselves by carrying out such an attack - thus allowing an open, decentralized ecosystem where people may choose between alternatives and the best currencies may thrive.
"

[1714869755]

1714869755

[1714869755]

1714869755

[1714869755]

1714869755

[1714869755]

1714869755

[Vlad2Vlad]

Brohim, you should read Satoshi's whitepaper again.  Splitting the network and ecosystem in two and having 2 bitcoins sharing or shaming the brand is not the way to go.  What's to stop someone from splintering it into 4 or more?  Would you like to see 8 bitcoins?  Would that coddle your coexist feelers? 

By design and for the best interest of Bitcoin's long-term survival, the short chain will be [naturally] killed off as outlined in Satoshi's original paper/vision.

xoxo,

Jericho911

[AngryDwarf]

If the network splits, miners have a right to attack the minority fork due to transaction replay between the two changes. A bilateral split to allow two independent chains to exists requires preventing transaction replay between the two chains. No one can tell the existing protocol to fork off.

[jonald_fyookball]

We believe that all these different currencies have a right to coexist peacefully and compete fairly. We oppose any attempt of supporters of one currency to inflict damage on a different currency, in a way which achieves no purpose other than denying others the right to use the currency of their choice.
  

Meni, I don't see you differentiating between stopping a minority chain temporarily while a network split is happening vs attacking an existing currency.   I could certainly make the argument that these are two very different things.  If the majority of the hashpower wants bigger blocks and wants to ensure we keep the bitcoin brand, why shouldn't we be allowed to do so?  That seems like fair to me.  If the minority wants to continue with 1mb blocks and chooses a different PoW algorithm and changes their name to something other than bitcoin, it can do that.  And I don't see anyone calling for attack at that point.  

And let's be honest about your bias:  You support bitcoinCore, which is just fine with 1mb blocks, so no action will suit them just fine.  Those that want bigger blocks or do not agree with core's roadmap or leadership are forced to do something else.

[Meni Rosenfeld]

Brohim, you should read Satoshi's whitepaper again.  Splitting the network and ecosystem in two and having 2 bitcoins sharing or shaming the brand is not the way to go.  What's to stop someone from splintering it into 4 or more?  Would you like to see 8 bitcoins?  Would that coddle your coexist feelers?  

By design and for the best interest of Bitcoin's long-term survival, the short chain will be [naturally] killed off as outlined in Satoshi's original paper/vision.

xoxo,

Jericho911

We'd rather see 8 Bitcoins that work, each in their own way, than 1 Bitcoin which barely works because its users are divided and can't agree on anything. Or, for that matter, 1 Bitcoin which is run by dictatorship.

If the network splits, miners have a right to attack the minority fork due to transaction replay between the two changes. A bilateral split to allow two independent chains to exists requires preventing transaction replay between the two chains. No one can tell the existing protocol to fork off.

Transaction replays should be resolved one way or another. That's not an argument that justifies attacking.

We believe that all these different currencies have a right to coexist peacefully and compete fairly. We oppose any attempt of supporters of one currency to inflict damage on a different currency, in a way which achieves no purpose other than denying others the right to use the currency of their choice.

Meni, I don't see you differentiating between stopping a minority chain temporarily while a network split is happening vs attacking an existing currency.   I could certainly make the argument that these are two very different things.  If the majority of the hashpower wants bigger blocks and wants to ensure we keep the bitcoin brand, why shouldn't we be allowed to do so?  That seems like fair to me.  If the minority wants to continue with 1mb blocks and chooses a different PoW algorithm and changes their name to something other than bitcoin, it can do that.  And I don't see anyone calling for attack at that point.  

And let's be honest about your bias:  You support bitcoinCore, which is just fine with 1mb blocks, so no action will suit them just fine.  Those that want bigger blocks or do not agree with core's roadmap or leadership are forced to do something else.

We're not, and we don't see the importance of this distinction. Majority of hashrate is not what determines what Bitcoin is. There are two camps, each with significant weight, that have different ideas about what "Bitcoin" is - so they should share the brand, at least until one of them prefers to rebrand. It's working fine in Ethereum.

And let's be honest about your bias:  You support bitcoinCore, which is just fine with 1mb blocks, so no action will suit them just fine.  Those that want bigger blocks or do not agree with core's roadmap or leadership are forced to do something else.

That's false, Bitcoin Core is looking to softfork SegWit, which is vital to its scalability roadmap. Bitcoin Core is currently hamstrung by miners that oppose it [SegWit. I thought that was clear], and I would much rather those miners form a separate currency.

Also, the document is not just my own opinion, it was approved by all board members of the Israeli Bitcoin Association, one of whom supports Bitcoin Unlimited (and supported Bitcoin-XT and Bitcoin Classic in the past).

[jonald_fyookball]

  Bitcoin Core is currently hamstrung by miners that oppose it

You post this yet deny you have any bias?  Doesn't help your credibility. 

[AngryDwarf]

If the network splits, miners have a right to attack the minority fork due to transaction replay between the two changes. A bilateral split to allow two independent chains to exists requires preventing transaction replay between the two chains. No one can tell the existing protocol to fork off.

Transaction replays should be resolved one way or another. That's not an argument that justifies attacking.

A split chain with changed protocol could introduce code to stop transaction replays between the chains, but no one can demand the existing protocol to change as it is an existing entity in itself. In this case, the coin that has split away has become an altcoin. It is likely then that the attacks would stop, as there is no economic incentive to continue the attack. Attacks on a split chain without transaction relay protection is justified as it is protecting the protocol by ensuring one valid chain exists.

[Meni Rosenfeld]

 Bitcoin Core is currently hamstrung by miners that oppose it

You post this yet deny you have any bias?  Doesn't help your credibility.  

I didn't deny having bias. Where did you read that?

I said that:

1. Your assertion "no action will suit Bitcoin Core just fine" is false.

2. Any bias I may personally have is irrelevant, as the linked document is more than my personal opinion.

Also, I'm not sure what your point is. SegWit is not currently activated because of miners who oppose it and don't signal support for it. That's an obvious fact.

You've quoted me out of context, I was talking about miners who oppose SegWit, not who oppose Bitcoin Core.

[jonald_fyookball]

Because I said "lets be honest about your bias......" and your reply was "that's false".  I apologize if I misinterpreted that.

I do not necessarily agree that minority chains should be attacked.  Letting the free market decide is a good thing but I also see the other side of the argument that it is fair to make sure the minority chain cannot absorb the network effect and brand name unfairly as well.

[stdset]

the short chain will be [naturally] killed off as outlined in Satoshi's original paper/vision.

If short (more precisely: containing less accumulated PoW) chain is to be killed, then why iXcoin, I0Coin, NMC etc. chains weren't killed by BTC chain? Why ETC chain wasn't killed by ETH chain?

On topic. I think such attack won't happen anyway. After ETH/ETC split ETH had overwhelmingly more hashpower than ETC, they even created a special pool for a 51% attack, still they weren't successful. It seems to me people generally prefer not to engage in such malicious activities. Additionally, conducting such an attack could trigger PoW change in the attacked chain. That would render expensive mining equipment useless should market prefer the minority hashpower chain. If they abstain from attacking, they keep possibility to switch to the chain preferred by users.

[QuestionAuthority]

Well Meni, maybe this is karma in action. Bitcoin core devs and bitcoin hardcore supporters laughed as LukeJr turned his pool toward an altcoin without his miners permission and destroyed it. That hardly seems like a very Christian or a coexist thing to do. Turnabout is fair play, right?

[ImHash]

I have a brilliant idea, why don't you guys just assassinate Jihan Wu and one or two more BU supporters (men behind the curtain) and do the community a great favor since you're very good at it?
It doesn't matter what you or anyone else (no miners) think or like or suggests, in this case only hash power can speak and I'm sure those idiots if successfully split the blockchain and see the disaster and since the attacking party needs to maintain +51% of hash power to be able to keep mining in the longest chain those silly miners will drop their support and leave the hostile chain and the rest which will be less than 50% will suddenly become the minority and then either die off or join back but seriously why would they want to cause all this drama and lost opportunities? as they can mine hundreds of blocks in the time wasted on failing to attack the network?

[Wind_FURY]

Brohim, you should read Satoshi's whitepaper again.  Splitting the network and ecosystem in two and having 2 bitcoins sharing or shaming the brand is not the way to go.  What's to stop someone from splintering it into 4 or more?  Would you like to see 8 bitcoins?  Would that coddle your coexist feelers? 

By design and for the best interest of Bitcoin's long-term survival, the short chain will be [naturally] killed off as outlined in Satoshi's original paper/vision.

xoxo,

Jericho911

It was not the case for Ethereum and Ethereum Classic though. This makes me wonder what Satoshi's thoughts are and how that could possibly happen to Bitcoin. Before the Ethereum split, was it supposed to happen in practice?

[jonald_fyookball]

Brohim, you should read Satoshi's whitepaper again.  Splitting the network and ecosystem in two and having 2 bitcoins sharing or shaming the brand is not the way to go.  What's to stop someone from splintering it into 4 or more?  Would you like to see 8 bitcoins?  Would that coddle your coexist feelers? 

By design and for the best interest of Bitcoin's long-term survival, the short chain will be [naturally] killed off as outlined in Satoshi's original paper/vision.

xoxo,

Jericho911

It was not the case for Ethereum and Ethereum Classic though. This makes me wonder what Satoshi's thoughts are and how that could possibly happen to Bitcoin. Before the Ethereum split, was it supposed to happen in practice?

Interesting to see "Ethereum" token much higher priced than "Classic" token so brand is important

[Peter R]

If the network splits, miners have a right to attack the minority fork due to transaction replay between the two changes. A bilateral split to allow two independent chains to exists requires preventing transaction replay between the two chains. No one can tell the existing protocol to fork off.

Transaction replays should be resolved one way or another. That's not an argument that justifies attacking.

Neither miners, business nor most users want a chain split, largely because of replay risk and the associated confusion of temporarily having two "bitcoins."  However, if the minority chain makes the necessary changes to prevent replays, then there would be no need for majority miners to mine empty blocks on the minority chain to protect against them (because replays wouldn't be possible).

So I don't see what all the fuss is about.  If a minority wants to split away from the hash power majority, either they should do so in a way the doesn't disturb or impose risk on the majority network (i.e., add replay protection, etc), or they should recognize that the majority is incentivized to protect its interests (which may include mining empty blocks on the minority chain). What else would you expect?

[stdset]

By design and for the best interest of Bitcoin's long-term survival, the short chain will be [naturally] killed off as outlined in Satoshi's original paper/vision.

It was not the case for Ethereum and Ethereum Classic though. This makes me wonder what Satoshi's thoughts are and how that could possibly happen to Bitcoin. Before the Ethereum split, was it supposed to happen in practice?

Short answer: no it wasn't supposed to happen. At least it wasn't supposed to happen somehow automatically, without an intentional attack.

[Xester]

If the network splits, miners have a right to attack the minority fork due to transaction replay between the two changes. A bilateral split to allow two independent chains to exists requires preventing transaction replay between the two chains. No one can tell the existing protocol to fork off.

Transaction replays should be resolved one way or another. That's not an argument that justifies attacking.

Neither miners, business nor most users want a chain split, largely because of replay risk and the associated confusion of temporarily having two "bitcoins."  However, if the minority chain makes the necessary changes to prevent replays, then there would be no need for majority miners to mine empty blocks on the minority chain to protect against them (because replays wouldn't be possible).

So I don't see what all the fuss is about.  If a minority wants to split away from the hash power majority, either they should do so in a way the doesn't disturb or impose risk on the majority network (i.e., add replay protection, etc), or they should recognize that the majority is incentivized to protect its interests (which may include mining empty blocks on the minority chain). What else would you expect?

If they decided to split bitcoins then let them be. If it will happen bitcoins price will be split into two and there will be a price meltdown but that meltdown is already being observed by bitcoin users since they view it as a chance to buy cheap bitcoin. Another thing also that will solve the problem of bitcoins shortage in amount and it will be nice to hold both of the bitcoins while they are cheap.

[dinofelis]

http://www.bitcoin.org.il/files/IBA_Statement-Hashrate_Attacks.pdf

"
We, the Israeli Bitcoin Association, pursue the goal of maximizing the benefit that Israel’s population obtain from the Bitcoin technology - which strongly depends on Bitcoin’s worldwide success.

We believe that, as a currency, Bitcoin is subject to the network effect, and that it is strongest when its community and industry, brought together by both ideology and practicality, are united in a single network; and that rifts and separation should be avoided if at all possible.

We also believe that Bitcoin is voluntary money; people use it because they choose to, not because they are coerced. As such, people can also choose to fork Bitcoin’s open source code and use an alternative currency with similar underlying principles.

We recognize that there may be different views about what Bitcoin is, and a time may come where those differences cannot be reconciled. It might then be unavoidable to experience a split of the currency into two separate networks, each sharing a blockchain history and - at least temporarily - the Bitcoin brand.

We believe that all these different currencies have a right to coexist peacefully and compete fairly. We oppose any attempt of supporters of one currency to inflict damage on a different currency, in a way which achieves no purpose other than denying others the right to use the currency of their choice.

This is the general problem when at the same time proposing total liberty and other principles.  You cannot prone liberty, and then prone principles according to which this liberty is supposed to be used, because that is against the first principle of liberty.

In the totally free (in the sense of liberty), trustless environment of crypto, what you call "attacks" is nothing else but exerting one's liberty in the frame of a strategy to overwhelm others (which is the principal usage of unconstrained liberty).  In a full liberty system there's only one right: the right of the strongest (smartest/fittest/fastest/wealthiest...).

The complex dynamics of interplay of different agents with different strategies, to be gamed by other agents, in a totally free environment, is very difficult to predict, and even more difficult to make it work out "according to desired principles" ; but the PoW scheme, where the investment in mining (and hence, fee collecting, selling transaction room, selling transaction permissions etc...) as a separate activity from "using the system", was or 1) not a smart move or 2) a totally vile idea from the start, with the aim to keep the entire system in the hands of a few, outside of the system itself.

Because you haven't yet seen the next potential part in this show: once the block chain is in the hands of a consortium of miners (most probably the monopoly producers of mining equipment), they can sell "transaction room" on the chain to a few privileged (paying) customers (say, exchanges and a few other big players), denying most normal users direct access to their own coins, as their transactions, not relayed by a customer of the miner consortium, will systematically be rejected, essentially obliging users to only have transactions from and to a few exchanges, but not amongst themselves, at which point, the exchanges have taken the place of commercial banks, and the miner consortium, as central bank, dictating their law to the exchanges being customers, which, on their turn, dictate their law to their customers.

There is no significant difference between a few centralized LN hubs to which everybody is bound to set up their channels, and a few exchanges, if those hubs/exchanges are at the mercy of a miner consortium, determining who has access to the block chain, by "exclusively renting block room".

In order to maintain exclusivity on the block chain room, no "escape route" must exist through another crypto currency.  This is why the strategy of the miner consortium is clear: they want small blocks of which they can sell the room to centralized exchanges, which will be the only agents through which bitcoin users can use their own coins.  Even though LN would give a similar structure (with exchanges replaced by LN hubs), the LN and Segwit offers the danger of bitcoin/litecoin exchange.  This is why the consortium needs to keep full control over this.  All this is a consequence of transaction maleability and PoW, which naturally leads to such situations.

[DooMAD]

If we're filing for irreconcilable differences, who gets LTC and the other 1000+ kids on the weekends?  

But yes, if there does have to be a divorce, as such, at least let's try to make it an amicable one.  It does seem like there is a rift that we are now well beyond healing and a middle-ground that, although visible in the far distance, is likely impossible to reach.  Both sides have some convincing arguments and I've reached the stage where I wouldn't be looking to short either chain.  I'm quite content to hodl it all and see how both visions of the "true" Bitcoin play out in practice, mainly just to put an end to the seemingly endless prognostications and pontifications from both sides.  I think it's safe to say we're all tired of that now.

This is the general problem when at the same time proposing total liberty and other principles.  You cannot prone liberty, and then prone principles according to which this liberty is supposed to be used, because that is against the first principle of liberty.

In the totally free (in the sense of liberty), trustless environment of crypto, what you call "attacks" is nothing else but exerting one's liberty in the frame of a strategy to overwhelm others (which is the principal usage of unconstrained liberty).  In a full liberty system there's only one right: the right of the strongest (smartest/fittest/fastest/wealthiest...).

But just to clarify, are you supporting the "might makes right" argument?  Or just commenting that it's a distinctly possible occurrence in a permissionless system?  Even if such actions can't be prevented, they can still be publicly condemned.  Poor form and low blows should always be reprimanded.  People might see cryptoland as a sort of "wild west", but (I hope) we're not savages.  It can, and should, be done cleanly.

[leopard2]

Meni is brilliant.

Sometimes it is better to listen to someone who is much smarter than yourself, and not respond with bullcrap