Why is using 51% hashing power stronger than using 51% of the people?

[fenican]

This could work, but you would need the nodes to regularly solve problems that only humans are known to be able to solve. That would prove there's a man in the loop, and would eliminate the risk of a botnet.

[ulhaq]

How do you use 51% of people? How do you determine that someone is a different person from someone else online? Are you going to collect everyone's IDs? Who is going to store those IDs?

Determining individuals is basically impossible to do and is easily gameable by individuals such that some people get more power than others without those others necessarily knowing.

Also, Bitcoin doesn't use 51% mining power for anything except 51% attacks.

filesharing, take a picture of your eye/fingerprint, gg wp. (it is already built into the ardor/bitswift network) The filesharing can check for dupes on the blockchain, so you can only have 1 account, in theory.

here is a eye captcha https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l4x0vOAu0lQ
you can do the same with fingerprint

here is the file sharing https://youtu.be/Y7TLFyK_3Pk?t=965 I explain it briefly in this check out www.bitswift.network wallet (login top right).  p2p exchange, file sharing, decentralized voting, asset creation etc.

 

But there are already large numbers of companies and governments that have large quantities of fingerprints, eye scans, and IDs, plus anyone who steals any of these can create many accounts, and who is going to verify which account for a person is real?

[TimeBits]

But there are already large numbers of companies and governments that have large quantities of fingerprints, eye scans, and IDs, plus anyone who steals any of these can create many accounts, and who is going to verify which account for a person is real?

Ideally it would be nice to connect to the healthcare systems so we can tie into some birth certs and other data.

You cannot do a live fingerprint captcha, eye captcha (video live stream and not be the person there). If a amazing video editor even created a fake person we could check the birth cert to it.

If someone has already registered there eye/finger or kyc, The system will check the existence database and see it is a copy and will not allow a duplicate account to be created. The community of the network would verify. See blockCOURT https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5141142.0

Let me make a video for you for example for when this happens (I could do it on a live stream) and blockcourt needs to get involved (the system would be able to do this normally but lets say someone does register before I can with my data), brb

https://youtu.be/ySvcUDimAk0

[Khaos77]

in the context of 51% attacks (and that's really the only relevant context), it's not.

with POW, nodes validate back to the genesis block. in order to "roll back" transactions, a 51% attacker must build a longer chain. this has huge financial costs.

with POS, these costs don't exist. once an attacker achieves 51% of the stake, they control the entire history of the blockchain. they could in fact erase the blockchain and all inputs at no additional cost.

as others have pointed out, 51% "of the people" can't be measured in an online system, but i thought maybe this was heading towards a discussion of POS consensus.

Sorry you are mistaken,

The odds of any Long range back to genesis blocks attacks are impossible in PoW or PoS,
due to the checkpoints included in both the PoW & PoS clients,
all devs add program coded checkpoints to their latest wallet updates.
Making any 51% attack all the way back to the genesis block IMPOSSIBLE.

However Short range 51% attacks are possible against PoW or PoS if you have the mining or staking power.

Some PoS coins have a rolling checkpoint, which only means reorgs are not permitted past a certain block #,
ie: Blackcoin, only allows reorgs back 500 blocks, after that 500 blocks , you can't reorg even if you had 95% of the staking power.

PoW bitcoin does not use rolling checkpoints and in theory could rewrite up to the last checkpoint in the bitcoin client. However that is impractical and unnecessary, because a sustained 51% attack can freeze all new transactions, which if your goal was to destroy bitcoin, that would easily accomplish it.
It would take the top 4 bitcoin mining pools to accomplish that, but in doing so they destroy their business.

In PoS, Coin-Age is a factor and it can offset staking power by being a multiplier of lower staking power,
due to the fact all PoS coins enter a dormant state, (depending on the specs) of 30 days, 20 days or 24 hours or 2 hours, during this dormant state, the dominant group would need much greater that 51% Collusion and they would still not be able to block all transactions like in a bitcoin PoW network.
(Due to the dormant period all staking % are always in flux and never static like in PoW)
One question arises, who would be stupid enough to spend millions of dollars to dominate a PoS network just so they can attempt to destroy it, it would be the same as getting all of your money and setting it on fire, no real point.

FYI:
PoS is a Cooperative form of Consensus ,
where you need others to help keep the chain moving and secure , by staking with high coin age.

PoW is a Combative form of Consensus ,
where the elite few dominate the non-elite majority.
 

[TimeBits]

^ You all assume the attacker wants something to do with bitcoin after the ATTACK or ATTACKS, reroll or regorg to a old checkpoint, they put the hashing power on that chain. RIP AGAIN.

Let us make the assumption instead of the person wanting bitcoin after, they don`t. Let us also make the assumption the person has enough money to take 51% of the hashing power of any network.

[Khaos77]

^ You all assume the attacker wants something to do with bitcoin after the ATTACK or ATTACKS, reroll or regorg to a old checkpoint, they put the hashing power on that chain. RIP AGAIN.

If the attacker only blocks all new transactions from entering the blockchain,
he freezes the blockchain.

Restoring to an old checkpoint can not defend against this version of attack in a PoW network.

Only by using the bitcoin client to censor the dangerous parties would work,
but by doing so you destroy any pretense of being decentralized,
and determined who may or may not mine future blocks, the ultimate control.

[TimeBits]

One question arises, who would be stupid enough to spend millions of dollars to dominate a PoS network just so they can attempt to destroy it, it would be the same as getting all of your money and setting it on fire, no real point.

The FED and there is a point, so bitcoin dies and fiat wins.

[Khaos77]

One question arises, who would be stupid enough to spend millions of dollars to dominate a PoS network just so they can attempt to destroy it, it would be the same as getting all of your money and setting it on fire, no real point.

The FED and there is a point, so bitcoin dies and fiat wins.

In that case , owning a few PoS coins to profit from a fed burn attempt might be very profitable.  

* It be easier & cheaper for the FED to just get their corrupt government officials to outlaw all crypto like
INDIA is proposing.*
https://www.coindesk.com/reserve-bank-of-india-denies-involvement-in-draft-bill-to-ban-cryptocurrencies

[figmentofmyass]

@Khaos77: you misread the post, which said in POW blockchains, nodes validate back to the genesis block---not that a 51% attacker can actually roll back to the genesis block. even aside from centralized checkpoints, the point is that POW (at least with a network as secure as bitcoin) implies great costs to "roll back" the chain. the further an attacker tries to roll back, the greater the cost because they must mine a longer chain than honest miners.

if your protocol depends on developers adding checkpoints, you don't have decentralized consensus. there is little point in using a blockchain at all. the developers are enforcing the blockchain state, not the economic incentives intended to overcome the byzantine generals problem.

^ You all assume the attacker wants something to do with bitcoin after the ATTACK or ATTACKS, reroll or regorg to a old checkpoint, they put the hashing power on that chain. RIP AGAIN.

Let us make the assumption instead of the person wanting bitcoin after, they don`t. Let us also make the assumption the person has enough money to take 51% of the hashing power of any network.

maybe you could walk us through an example? how would this work, and what are the incentives at play?

[Khaos77]

@Khaos77: you misread the post, which said in POW blockchains, nodes validate back to the genesis block---not that a 51% attacker can actually roll back to the genesis block. even aside from centralized checkpoints, the point is that POW (at least with a network as secure as bitcoin) implies great costs to "roll back" the chain. the further an attacker tries to roll back, the greater the cost because they must mine a longer chain than honest miners.

if your protocol depends on developers adding checkpoints, you don't have decentralized consensus. there is little point in using a blockchain at all. the developers are enforcing the blockchain state, not the economic incentives intended to overcome the byzantine generals problem.

You do realize Bitcoin has software coded checkpoints, added by it developers.  
So does that ruin bitcoin for you?

FYI: http://archive.is/dEZ35

July 17, 2010, 09:35:51 PM
#1
Download links available now on bitcoin.org.  Everyone should upgrade to this version.

- Added a simple security safeguard that locks-in the block chain up to this point.
- Reduced addr messages to save bandwidth now that there are plenty of nodes to connect to.
- Spanish translation by milkiway.
- French translation by aidos.

The security safeguard makes it so even if someone does have more than 50% of the network's CPU power, they can't try to go back and redo the block chain before yesterday.  (if you have this update)

I'll probably put a checkpoint in each version from now on.
Once the software has settled what the widely accepted block chain is, there's no point in leaving open the unwanted non-zero possibility of revision months later.

Satoshi promoted software coded checkpoints with client updates.  

Checkpoints added this way do nothing , but make long range attacks impossible.

You are confusing that type of checkpoint with a checkpoint server,  that actually determines which blocks were valid and allowed, very few devs use a checkpoint server as no one denies it is centralized control.

But the way the majority of PoS devs and satoshi did it with program coded checkpoints, does nothing more than block long range attacks without giving the devs the ability to control the future blocks acceptance or rejection.

[TimeBits]

@Khaos77: you misread the post, which said in POW blockchains, nodes validate back to the genesis block---not that a 51% attacker can actually roll back to the genesis block. even aside from centralized checkpoints, the point is that POW (at least with a network as secure as bitcoin) implies great costs to "roll back" the chain. the further an attacker tries to roll back, the greater the cost because they must mine a longer chain than honest miners.

if your protocol depends on developers adding checkpoints, you don't have decentralized consensus. there is little point in using a blockchain at all. the developers are enforcing the blockchain state, not the economic incentives intended to overcome the byzantine generals problem.

^ You all assume the attacker wants something to do with bitcoin after the ATTACK or ATTACKS, reroll or regorg to a old checkpoint, they put the hashing power on that chain. RIP AGAIN.

Let us make the assumption instead of the person wanting bitcoin after, they don`t. Let us also make the assumption the person has enough money to take 51% of the hashing power of any network.

maybe you could walk us through an example? how would this work, and what are the incentives at play?

Two ways to fuck btc over by them.

1)Print a shit load of money, buy a bunch of btc, sell at a loss to make btc price in fiat 0 or low, so people lose faith in it.
2)Print a shit load of money, buy a bunch of asic farms, control the network and fuck it over, so people lose faith in it. (they can move to whatever chain you do with their hashing power)

The incentive is that fiat wins, bitcoin dies, they control the market of markets again. #ENDTHEFED #STOPALLFIAT

anyways can we all agree time > fiat https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5151153.0 thanks!
everyone making the supply > a few people
everyone voting > a few people
everyone have a job > a few people
everyone owns the equal the same amount of hashing power > a few people

[jakelyson]

snip

snip

snip

Two ways to fuck btc over by them.

1)Print a shit load of money, buy a bunch of btc, sell at a loss to make btc price in fiat 0 or low, so people lose faith in it.
2)Print a shit load of money, buy a bunch of asic farms, control the network and fuck it over, so people lose faith in it. (they can move to whatever chain you do with their hashing power)

The incentive is that fiat wins, bitcoin dies, they control the market of markets again. #ENDTHEFED #STOPALLFIAT

anyways can we all agree time > fiat https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5151153.0 thanks!
everyone making the supply > a few people
everyone voting > a few people
everyone have a job > a few people
everyone owns the equal the same amount of hashing power > a few people

People will lose faith of overinflated fiat first before they destroy bitcoin using the strategy you pointed out.

[TimeBits]

People will lose faith of overinflated fiat first before they destroy bitcoin using the strategy you pointed out.

I think everyone has already lol, they are all driving cars on artificial gas, not even the fumes of real gas, just on the blood, sweat and tears of real working people.

Those people will be coming for heads I tell yah what, pretty soon. Read some of the comments, youtube: ROTHSCHILD DEATH AND READ THE COMMENTS ON ANY VIDEO!

I do not dance with these comments, I think it is sad when any being dies, I pray every time I step on ant by accident, say sorry to the ant and ask to become the ant I killed. I made a system, kind of well a theory of one that can fix everything please look into it. So no one has to die.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5151153.0 (time stuff)
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5141142.0 (bitcoin 2.0)(not bitcoin2 wtf that is)

[figmentofmyass]

You do realize Bitcoin has software coded checkpoints, added by it developers.  
So does that ruin bitcoin for you?

bitcoin (like most small altcoins) was highly centralized early on. satoshi even hard forked bitcoin in the very early days. that doesn't mean a successful hard fork is possible today.

FYI, no centralized checkpoint has been hard coded into the client in ~5 years, and the consensus is to never add them again and in fact to remove the previous checkpoints if possible in the future.

i don't view bitcoin as some immaculate conception situation, lol. the early client was coded horribly, the early development process was very centralized. that doesn't mean we need to embrace these mistakes.

[Khaos77]

You do realize Bitcoin has software coded checkpoints, added by it developers.  
So does that ruin bitcoin for you?

bitcoin (like most small altcoins) was highly centralized early on. satoshi even hard forked bitcoin in the very early days. that doesn't mean a successful hard fork is possible today.

FYI, no centralized checkpoint has been hard coded into the client in ~5 years, and the consensus is to never add them again and in fact to remove the previous checkpoints if possible in the future.

i don't view bitcoin as some immaculate conception situation, lol. the early client was coded horribly, the early development process was very centralized. that doesn't mean we need to embrace these mistakes.

So you are saying you disagree with Satoshi.

5 years or 1 day, programed coded checkpoints are there,
and if the btc devs were really serious, they would have removed them instead of just not adding more.

So until you petition to have them removed, bitcoin uses checkpoint exactly the same as most PoS coins.  
As their are many PoS coins that have also not updated their checkpoints in recent years.  

[figmentofmyass]

bitcoin (like most small altcoins) was highly centralized early on. satoshi even hard forked bitcoin in the very early days. that doesn't mean a successful hard fork is possible today.

FYI, no centralized checkpoint has been hard coded into the client in ~5 years, and the consensus is to never add them again and in fact to remove the previous checkpoints if possible in the future.

i don't view bitcoin as some immaculate conception situation, lol. the early client was coded horribly, the early development process was very centralized. that doesn't mean we need to embrace these mistakes.

So you are saying you disagree with Satoshi.

yes. satoshi wasn't a god. he may have been a visionary re bitcoin's economic design, but he wasn't a great coder and some of his ideas were naïve or just flat out wrong. i'm glad we have a developer community that is far more robust and capable now.

5 years or 1 day, programed coded checkpoints are there,
and if the btc devs were really serious, they would have removed them instead of just not adding more.

it's not that simple. here is some discussion of the issue:
https://bitcoin.stackexchange.com/a/70824

and some discussion of why checkpoints were used in the first place (hint, not what you think):
https://bitcoin.stackexchange.com/a/75735

So until you petition to have them removed, bitcoin uses checkpoint exactly the same as most PoS coins.  
As their are many PoS coins that have also not updated their checkpoints in recent years.  

years-old checkpoints don't affect the security model. as stated earlier, i don't care what happened in the early days when bitcoin was worth very little and the development process was highly centralized.

[Khaos77]

years-old checkpoints don't affect the security model. as stated earlier, i don't care what happened in the early days when bitcoin was worth very little and the development process was highly centralized.

And like I said earlier, many PoS coins have also not updated checkpoints in years.

You make the point , years old checkpoints don't affect the security model,
so by that standard you should have no issues with a PoS coin that has years old checkpoint.

If you do , you are not being honest with yourself.

But the year old checkpoints do affect security, making sure no quantum computer can come along and rewrite the blockchain all the way to the genesis block, as their true potential is years from being fully understood.

Recent BTC devs don't improve bitcoin, they improve LN, as they see it as the future not BTC.
Satoshi saw the future with Onchain Bitcoin, not LN's Offchain Banking.
Bitcoin was to remove the banking middlemen , LN is nothing but middlemen.

[franky1]

here is a eye captcha https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l4x0vOAu0lQ
you can do the same with fingerprint

1. and as you get older you get cataracts and suddenly the funds you saved for retirement you cant access
2. and as you get older you cut ur finger from paper cuts or work as a janitor using harmful chemicals, bye bye fingerprint

some even envision DNA as a identity. but with the whole new disruptive science community working on stem cells and dna cures using virals, DNA can change too

this is why passports dont rely on just retina scans but use 'witnesses' to a photo, signed documents like birth certificates, retina, and others COMBINED to reduce the chance of faking a passport.

[figmentofmyass]

years-old checkpoints don't affect the security model. as stated earlier, i don't care what happened in the early days when bitcoin was worth very little and the development process was highly centralized.

And like I said earlier, many PoS coins have also not updated checkpoints in years.

You make the point , years old checkpoints don't affect the security model,
so by that standard you should have no issues with a PoS coin that has years old checkpoint.

If you do , you are not being honest with yourself.

i don't have issues with that. what gave you the impression otherwise? this is the issue at hand:

if your protocol depends on developers adding checkpoints, you don't have decentralized consensus.

i don't know what protocols you're talking about but clearly bitcoin doesn't fit that description.

But the year old checkpoints do affect security, making sure no quantum computer can come along and rewrite the blockchain all the way to the genesis block, as their true potential is years from being fully understood.

the consensus opinion seems to be that ECDSA would be broken by QC long before that. and that may be decades away as it is. we have much bigger fish to fry than such theoretical problems. bitcoin seeks to solve the double spending problem, not secure money from decades-out theoretical quantum computing problems.

[TimeBits]

here is a eye captcha https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l4x0vOAu0lQ
you can do the same with fingerprint

1. and as you get older you get cataracts and suddenly the funds you saved for retirement you cant access
2. and as you get older you cut ur finger from paper cuts or work as a janitor using harmful chemicals, bye bye fingerprint

some even envision DNA as a identity. but with the whole new disruptive science community working on stem cells and dna cures using virals, DNA can change too

this is why passports dont rely on just retina scans but use 'witnesses' to a photo, signed documents like birth certificates, retina, and others COMBINED to reduce the chance of faking a passport.

Well in the case where something changes, it will be documented and updated to your chain and address. We can make digital passports quite easy with file sharing and digital birth certs combined into the same system. It is not like everything is set in stone, just like with other documents. If the network agrees or the assigned let`s say 1000 random people for blockCOURT (still better than 1). Things can be changed in the system by the community and participants in the system.

There will be even be problems let us say with like conjoint twins, are they one or two people, same eyes, or same fingerprints possibly? or people with no hands for fingerprints etc etc, I am sure I can come up with a work around for every single case in humans. (they already do in the current system).

There will need to be physicality`s put up in all the major city`s to get people into the system slowly and properly (people joining late get a back cap on the duration they missed, from birth) But as home cams/phone cams get better I am sure everyone can do everything from home soon. (the entire network will be there to witness).