Is 51% attack a double-spending threat to bitcoin?

[DooMAD]

1- There is just one hypothetical threat that full nodes can ever detect: illegal inflation of bitcoins. There is no other threat to bitcoin that full-nodes are capable to detect not mentioning their inability to mitigate.

Wrong.  There are numerous consensus rules that full nodes perform checks to ensure each blocks conforms to.  Please refer to this wiki article for a list.  If ANY of those rules are breached, the node will reject the block.

[1714664908]

1714664908

[1714664908]

1714664908

[aliashraf]

1- There is just one hypothetical threat that full nodes can ever detect: illegal inflation of bitcoins. There is no other threat to bitcoin that full-nodes are capable to detect not mentioning their inability to mitigate.

Wrong.  There are numerous consensus rules that full nodes perform checks to ensure each blocks conforms to.  Please refer to this wiki article for a list.  If ANY of those rules are breached, the node will reject the block.

Really? Bitcoin wiki? Interesting!

FYI: Besides ordinary transaction processing, bitcoin consensus rules serve just two canonical purposes:1) mitigating the double-spending problem and 2) regulating the rate of bitcoin issuance. You can look at the two as one big target: preserving the scarcity of bitcoin as planned by the protocol, i.e. inflation control. 

[Wind_FURY]

Relaying blocks is not a big deal. Your argument is not qualified enough to be discussed here, sorry, blocks get relayed anyway, e.g by collided pools.

I don't see how this part of your post is right. That is simply wrong, and I doubt you truly understand how the Bitcoin network works.

Blocks are relayed to any client, being a mining full node, a full node wallet, an SPV wallet, a blockchain explorer, ...) who connect to a pool/solo-miner and/or any full node that accepts inbound connections. What do you mean by accusing me of being ignorant about bitcoin relay network? It is not so complicated and I've been discussing it on many occasions in this forum.

Because they are ONLY connected to a full node, that validates, the clients that ONLY connect to the full node DON'T DO anything for the network, and are NOT truly part of the network.

Plus, full nodes are not able to detect mal-incentivized reorgs and censorship the most practical threats due to mining centralization.

Then why haven't they tried it?

You guess! It is not a rational move, simple game theory.

In the network's current form, Game Theory, because?

How? Let's dive in:

There is a very efficient, secure way of running a bitcoin full node on commodity mobile devices very efficiently in economic mode, called UTXO commitment. According to this model miners would have to commit to the UTXO (state of the bitcoin machine) by somehow including its hash in their blocks and a light full-node could besides synchronizing headers like a usual SPV wallet continue to downloading the full state of the machine as of latest couples of hundreds of blocks and act like an ordinary pruned full node thereafter. Right?

If "that" doesn't validate and relay transactions/blocks, then it's not doing anything for the network, and therefore not part of the network.

"That" is an ordinary bitcoin pruned full node and does everything an ordinary full node can do other than uploading the ancient history of blockchain for the current (stupid) bootstrap process.

Listen, if it's not validating, and relaying blocks. It's not part of the network.

[a.s.t.e.r.i.s.k]

I see no confusion in what you have quoted from me. It is crystal clear: Your claim about full nodes playing such a crucial role in bitcoin is simply wrong and baseless. As I've extensively discussed up-thread, full nodes have nothing to do with the network security, they are just useful for the entities who own them as a single body to keep them somewhat more secure against some attacks that are not considered realistic anyway.

Either you are incorrect, or unclear, or both.

I read the article you've linked, the day it was published, good statistics about Ethereum but nothing new for bitcoin,

That's great, good for you.

Ethereum's snapshots. The latter is vulnerable to short-range attacks UTXO commitment is not!

Feel free to describe it.

the same blind enthusiasm about current bitcoin. Put some real meat on the table, please. .. which is really a stupid paranoia. It could also be considered a forgery of concepts to spread FUD about the mining scene of bitcoin for political reasons, again, stupid.

It's a challenge to take you for serious when you write like this. It's unclear what you are trying to say, if anything.

A 51% attack would not let through a double-spend
Last to respond to your question in the thread's title, "Is 51% attack a double-spending threat to Bitcoin?", I guess you have the answer already: It is not.

Why? According to you, it is because full nodes won't allow it but my argument is more solid: It is not gonna happen because it will be revealed anyways and destroy the attacker completely beforehand. Bitcoin inflation rules are currently parts of a social contract, rather than some lines of code, it is hard to understand but you should try.

Why did you make a thread with the title "Re: Is 51% attack a double-spending threat to bitcoin?" - a question to which the answer is no - to discuss a Bitcoin fork?

You suggest a "it (doublespends?) will be revealed anyways (now how, unlike how else?) and destroy the attacker completely beforehand (how?)" related to "Bitcoin inflation rules" in the "social contract, rather than some lines of code".

Are you trying to communicate a Bitcoin fork or protocol feature suggestion?

Anyhow this was my last post here.

[amishmanish]

No, I am actually trying to understand the argument you are making and seems to me that you take a lot of things on good faith for the game theory to work. In the replies above, you have repeatedly said that miners will be kept in check because "community", "media" will know as soon as anything happens. But this has to be detected right? That is what a full node does and in a decentralized system, we need more of them.

For getting rid of a false discourse, one should absolutely remain focused.
--snip--

I appreciate your effort in trying to convince me but I have thought for myself. For reasons i mentioned before, I do not think that this is a false discourse. In the current form of its implementation, Full Nodes are indispensable to the bitcoin network. Those that think otherwise are trying their own methods.

Core devs of bitcoin somehow have become convinced that bitcoin is what it is and there is no hope to do anything disruptive about the two BIG problems: Centralization of Mining and Scaling. They've gone that far to adopt Buterin's stupid Trilemma assertion about denouncing feasibility of solving the two at the same time (with a fake third factor, security, he has added to emulate something he has read in high school, the Combined Gas Law ).

You are reading too much into the thoughts and minds of core devs. I think their sole motivation is infallibility and robustness of bitcoin which leads to a conservative approach, understandably so. The discussions that happen at the bitcoin mailing list and the activity in bitcoin repository are proof that it is open-to-all and everyone is trying to find a better way forward.

I'm advocating for both: decentralization of mining and scaling bitcoin at the same time but it is very important to note: a decentralized mining scene needs full nodes, many many of them, solo miners are full nodes, remember?
So, I'm the one who truly loves full nodes. The give-up strategist? No, he is just a fake lover.

This idea assumes two things:
1.) Implementation, testing and adoption of fundamental changes to the block structures such that pools are no longer needed. Do you know of any such implementation? Working code, testnet, altcoin ?
2.) It also assumes that One node= One vote. This is no longer the case due to ASICs. The fundamental assumption that everyone running the core client would also own hashpower changed with ASICs. That is why, in the current reality, Full nodes are what they are, till of course we have alternative implementations.

I'll bow out of this discussion for now with one last word. Code speaks louder than words/ advocacy. 

[DooMAD]

1- There is just one hypothetical threat that full nodes can ever detect: illegal inflation of bitcoins. There is no other threat to bitcoin that full-nodes are capable to detect not mentioning their inability to mitigate.

Wrong.  There are numerous consensus rules that full nodes perform checks to ensure each blocks conforms to.  Please refer to this wiki article for a list.  If ANY of those rules are breached, the node will reject the block.

Really? Bitcoin wiki? Interesting!

FYI: Besides ordinary transaction processing, bitcoin consensus rules serve just two canonical purposes:1) mitigating the double-spending problem and 2) regulating the rate of bitcoin issuance. You can look at the two as one big target: preserving the scarcity of bitcoin as planned by the protocol, i.e. inflation control. 

How about, before you go spouting "FYI" at people, you could perhaps ensure that the "information" you are providing is accurate?

You are still talking nonsense.  What really would be interesting is if you actually read the wiki and made at least some attempt to understand Bitcoin before you delve down the path of espousing a solution which is still looking for a problem to solve.

[aliashraf]

Thank you very much guys for joining this conversation. Few points to answer some FAQ and I'll be discontinuing this thread. Feel free to add your comments if any but I won't follow anymore:

1- I started this thread for one simple purpose: Re-visiting some of the ideological standpoints of bitcoin community as of these days which has distracted us from PoW and its crucial role in bitcoin both conceptually and historically.

2- I did it because I see many occasions in PoW for improving the state of bitcoin which are ignored or denied after the shameful bch fork.

3- As of specific improvement proposals, I discussed UTXO commitment and reminded of Drivechain scaling proposals which are under attack because they seem to rely too much on PoW they are both examples of how a minor, tolerable soft-fork could help bitcoin to get in better shape and instead it is blocked because of vague anti-PoW assumptions, I tried to debunk here.

4- I've also another project under the hood, one would consider it as a decentralized mining pool based on a whole new technology other than what is perceived from this concept now. For such projects to be of any value for helping bitcoin mining to become compatible with the original design, we need to be more sensitive and serious about the mining scene of bitcoin and recognize such efforts as being legitimate and important instead of alienating them and insisting on mining as a fringe world.

Finally, I have to clarify that I'm not an anti-core warrior (or a big-block enthusiast or PoS trojan or something) who has nothing to do other than attacking Greg Maxwell or Adam Back or other nice people we all feel deep respect for, the thing is, sometimes they go politics too much and do not let themselves and people to think out of the box. I understand bitcoin is under attack from many sides and people run sophisticated schemes to fail bitcoin and to take advantage of such a failure and these guys have every right to be sensitive and sharp but we have to think and re-think and discuss as well and it is absolutely necessary to avoid sectarianism at the same time.

[Wind_FURY]

4- I've also another project under the hood, one would consider it as a decentralized mining pool based on a whole new technology other than what is perceived from this concept now. For such projects to be of any value for helping bitcoin mining to become compatible with the original design, we need to be more sensitive and serious about the mining scene of bitcoin and recognize such efforts as being legitimate and important instead of alienating them and insisting on mining as a fringe world.

No one is alienating the miners. They are an important part of the community, BUT, don't expect the community to submit to their demands. They tried to politicize the use of BIP-9 once, and they had the UASF to crack them.

Good luck to your project, that you have been teasing us for a long time.

[Wind_FURY]

aliashraf, I thought of asking you in the other "51%" topic, but I believe it's better suited here.

Considering all your thoughts about what, and debates against the full nodes, would it be in your opinion that Bitcoin Cash is "potentially" a better network than Bitcoin?

[aliashraf]

aliashraf, I thought of asking you in the other "51%" topic, but I believe it's better suited here.

Considering all your thoughts about what, and debates against the full nodes, would it be in your opinion that Bitcoin Cash is "potentially" a better network than Bitcoin?

To be short and comprehensive: No, I hate bcash, because they did what nobody should do ever with a great project such as bitcoin: worsening the problems. By increasing the block size they ruined any chance for solo miners to exist because of proximity premium consequences.

As of full nodes, I don't think the arguments made by the other side about Raspberry Pi nodes hold enough water. It was not is not about poor users who couldn't afford an average pc or VPS for running a full node, it is about the centralization of mining.

P.S.
I think revisiting the block size debate or your general concerns about full nodes is a good idea but as @ETFbitcoin has suggested it'd be better if you start a new thread for this.