I believe network control should be 66.67%, not 51%

[Bitware]

Thank you.

[DannyHamilton]

Thank you.

That's not how mathematics works.

[Bitware]

Thank you.

That's not how mathematics works.

The American government wants to take Arms from the American citizens. They cant do it with a 51% vote because the underlying foundation of our system of governance - the Constitution - codifies the right to bear Arms and requires a 2/3'rd (66%) vote to amend it. They just cant ever seem to get close to 66%, although they have the 51% covered consistently.

I consider the hashing (voting) percentage required for control of Bitcoin similarly.

Any rise in the hashing percentage required to control the network would secure the network from any person, group or entity who may wish to stray to far from Satoshi's whitepaper or otherwise damage Bitcoin.

My apologies for my lack of clarity with such an important issue.

[defaced]

Thank you.

That's not how mathematics works.

This

[Bitware]

Thank you.

That's not how mathematics works.

This

Is what I suggest impossible?

If so, would you please tell me why?

What am I not understanding?

[Buziss]

Thank you.

That's not how mathematics works.

This

Is what I suggest impossible?

If so, would you please tell me why?

What am I not understanding?

Are you sure you really understand the problem we usually refer as "51% attack"?
If not, maybe you can take a look at the wiki (https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Weaknesses#Attacker_has_a_lot_of_computing_power).

[Bitware]

Are you sure you really understand the problem we usually refer as "51% attack"?
If not, maybe you can take a look at the wiki (https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Weaknesses#Attacker_has_a_lot_of_computing_power).

I had ASSumed it was a setting of some kind.

Thank you for your help understanding this issue.

[Buziss]

Thank you.

That's not how mathematics works.

This

Is what I suggest impossible?

If so, would you please tell me why?

What am I not understanding?

Are you sure you really understand the problem we usually refer as "51% attack"?
If not, maybe you can take a look at the wiki (https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Weaknesses).
Just read the section "Attacker has a lot of computing power".

I had ASSumed it was a setting of some kind.

Thank you for your help understanding this issue.

You're welcome

[DannyHamilton]

Thank you.

That's not how mathematics works.

This

Is what I suggest impossible?

If so, would you please tell me why?

What am I not understanding?

There is no voting.

There is no 51%.

There is only mathematics and probability.

A person with 100% of the hashing power on the network has a 100% chance of solving the next block.

A person with 66% of the hashing power on the network has a 66% chance of solving the next block.

A person with 51% or the hashing power on the network has a 51% chance of solving the next block.

[Foxpup]

What am I not understanding?

You're not understanding how proof-of-work works. In Bitcoin (or any Byzantine system), some nodes are good, and some nodes are bad (either malfunctioning or malicious), and you don't know which is which. Proof-of-work is one solution, in which it is assumed that the majority (51%) of computational power is held by good nodes, so in the event that two or more different nodes provide conflicting data, we go with whichever data set has the most work behind it.

The problem with requiring more than a majority is that it implies that the data set with the most work is not necessarily correct. It may be correct or it may not be, and there is not way to know. Say you have two conflicting blockchains, one with 50% more work than the other (and therefor represents 60% of the computational power of the network - more than 51%, but less than 66.67%). Is the chain with the most work the correct one and the other one a failed attack, or is the chain with the most work a failed 66.67% attack and the chain with the lesser work is correct? Which chain is correct? How do you know? This is the question you must answer in order to make your suggestion possible.

[Bitware]

There is no voting.

There is no 51%.

There is only mathematics and probability.

A person with 100% of the hashing power on the network has a 100% chance of solving the next block.

A person with 66% of the hashing power on the network has a 66% chance of solving the next block.

A person with 51% or the hashing power on the network has a 51% chance of solving the next block.

You're not understanding how proof-of-work works. In Bitcoin (or any Byzantine system), some nodes are good, and some nodes are bad (either malfunctioning or malicious), and you don't know which is which. Proof-of-work is one solution, in which it is assumed that the majority (51%) of computational power is held by good nodes, so in the event that two or more different nodes provide conflicting data, we go with whichever data set has the most work behind it.

The problem with requiring more than a majority is that it implies that the data set with the most work is not necessarily correct. It may be correct or it may not be, and there is not way to know. Say you have two conflicting blockchains, one with 50% more work than the other (and therefor represents 60% of the computational power of the network - more than 51%, but less than 66.67%). Is the chain with the most work the correct one and the other one a failed attack, or is the chain with the most work a failed 66.67% attack and the chain with the lesser work is correct? Which chain is correct? How do you know? This is the question you must answer in order to make your suggestion possible.

These really helped too. Thanks a lot.