How easy would it be to fake transactions?

[Poker Player]

Well this is why I have talked about increasing the block size in the past. So far we are OK since the adoption is not that fast to get 100 million people into bitcoin in a year and those who are adopting bitcoin aren't all using it for payment. By the time we get to that situation (probably in another decade) we must have a hard fork.

But wasn't it in 2016-17 that there was already the blocksize war, resulting in the (unsuccessful) shitcoin cash hard fork? I think you don't have a new shitcoin cash in mind as a solution to the problem, and I would like to hear your idea.

I don't know if this is going a bit off topic in this thread but it is a thread I created, after all.

[LoyceV]

Well this is why I have talked about increasing the block size in the past. So far we are OK since the adoption is not that fast to get 100 million people into bitcoin in a year and those who are adopting bitcoin aren't all using it for payment. By the time we get to that situation (probably in another decade) we must have a hard fork.

Is the adoption slow because of the lack of blockspace, or is blockspace not a problem because of the slow adoption? At the end of 2017 when I paid $25 for a small transaction (one input and one output), Bitcoin was impossible to use for normal payments. At that point I didn't care how, as long as something would be done about it. Bigger blocks or LN, as a Bitcoin user I didn't care.
However, if we're talking about 100 million people who open and close several channels per year, and then imagine increasing 100 fold from there, we'll end up with GB blocks, and that's undesirable because it kills decentralization. As much as I'd like to see more blockspace for an increase in transaction numbers, it doesn't scale well to reach mass adoption.

[pooya87]

But wasn't it in 2016-17 that there was already the blocksize war, resulting in the (unsuccessful) shitcoin cash hard fork? I think you don't have a new shitcoin cash in mind as a solution to the problem, and I would like to hear your idea.

I don't know if this is going a bit off topic in this thread but it is a thread I created, after all.

Bcash is a shitcoin not because it increased the block size but because it did it without any support and is essentially centralized. In fact most of the block size increase proposals were rejected because they were centralizing the system (eg. dynamic block size where miners decided its size, or a big block increase when we didn't need that much increase).

But we have already increased the bitcoin block size back in 2017 by a potential factor of 4 which in practice was a 1.5-1.7x increase. We've also followed that up with using the space more efficiently with the new change in 2021 which effectively increases capacity without increasing the block size.
These efforts are enough for the time being but eventually (maybe in a decade) there needs to be another significant change that would increase the size enough to satisfy the usage that includes second layer.

Is the adoption slow because of the lack of blockspace, or is blockspace not a problem because of the slow adoption?

The later. I don't think the adoption is being affected by blockspace. There are dozens of more important reasons why it is slow such as the volatility, FUD, being a new and "scary" technology,...
Even your example of the high fees was only a short term problem that didn't last past early 2018.

However, if we're talking about 100 million people who open and close several channels per year, and then imagine increasing 100 fold from there, we'll end up with GB blocks, and that's undesirable because it kills decentralization. As much as I'd like to see more blockspace for an increase in transaction numbers, it doesn't scale well to reach mass adoption.

You are overestimating the increase. Bitcoin network has been processing between 200k and 400k transactions per day. That means the capacity is currently at about 150 million transactions annually (only 100 million of it is was used in the past 365 days).
With more payment aggregation from big services and usage of new technologies (eg. using Taproot instead of legacy multisig) this can increase to 250 million. All with the current capacity without any protocol change.
To cover 100 million people opening and closing a couple of channels per year we won't need a 100x increase. Besides, with a hard fork the efficiency of the space that is being used will increase by a lot. With simple basic changes in such hard fork without changing the current potential 4 MB size we could increase it to 400 million tx/year.

[LoyceV]

However, if we're talking about 100 million people who open and close several channels per year, and then imagine increasing 100 fold from there, we'll end up with GB blocks, and that's undesirable because it kills decentralization. As much as I'd like to see more blockspace for an increase in transaction numbers, it doesn't scale well to reach mass adoption.

You are overestimating the increase.
~
To cover 100 million people opening and closing a couple of channels per year we won't need a 100x increase.

I meant a 100x increase in number of people and channels opened per person. Say a billion people who each make a few transactions per month.
I think custodial payments will be much more likely though, people are used to it on exchanges, and they're used to it from their bank. If my bank starts offering Bitcoin transactions that are accepted in all shops, I wouldn't mind trusting them for it, just like I now "trust" them (thanks tot he €100k government guarantee per account of course, without that I wouldn't trust a banker at all).
A much larger worry comes when they start their fractional reserve Bitcoin banking. One could argue would be fake transactions.

[DaveF]

A much larger worry comes when they start their fractional reserve Bitcoin banking. One could argue would be fake transactions.

Drifting even more from the original post but makes you wonder if a 'proof of cold storage' protocol thing would be good.
Bank "A" signs something that says they have 100BTC
They can then open 10 x 10BTC lightning channels to 10 other financial institutions without having to expose that BTC to 'the real world' until it's time to close them.

Without a lot of programming & security I can see it being a nightmare for abuse. BUT I can also see it making the risk assessment that much easier. They don't have to worry as much about hacks if their money is sitting in a 3 of 5 multisig wallet and only gets touched / balanced at the end of the week (or whatever)

I'm sure there are a ton of reasons why it can't work but it's a thought.

-Dave

[o_e_l_e_o]

It's even easier: if a casino allows zero-confirmation deposits, you can simply go all in. If you win, you wait for confirmations and withdraw your funds. If you lose, you invalidate the deposit by double spending.

Yeah. As stompix says, you don't want to use a scenario where if your attack fails you could lose all your money. Instead you want a scenario where if your attack fails, you are left with what you started with. A better approach would be to find a large enough exchange which requires 1-3 confirmations for a bitcoin deposit, and make a large deposit. While you are waiting for it confirm, you are secretly mining your own chain which includes a transaction which double spends that deposit back to your own address. As soon as you can, you immediately withdraw your coins, and then also mine the withdrawal transaction in to your own secret chain. Once you've done all this, and provided your chain is longer than the main chain, you broadcast the whole thing at once, forcing the network to move to a chain which double spends your deposit transaction but also accepts your withdrawal transaction. Congratulations, you've just doubled your bitcoin.

It is essentially a 51% attack but without 51% of the hashrate, so there is always the chance you will fail and you need large amounts of luck. It is also an incredibly costly attack and you would still need a huge amount of hash power to have a reasonable chance of pulling it off, as well as an exchange which would process such a large withdrawal immediately with no delay and no further checks.

In terms of using this attack to steal back the payment you made for some goods and services, then it is a complete non-starter for 99% of situations since a miner with such a huge amount of hash power would almost always make more money simply by mining honestly.

[BlackHatCoiner]

I think custodial payments will be much more likely though

If bitcoin became the standard for everyday transactions, but in a fractional reserve lending way, it'd have essentially failed as a project and I'd most probably stop using it. Remember;

While the system works well enough for most transactions, it still suffers from the inherent weaknesses of the trust based model.

What would be the point of bitcoin if the bankers could inflate it this way? None. Bitcoin distinguishes from the other electronic payment methods when it comes to trust. How would you convince a person to use it if you didn't add this feature as an argument?

Besides, who said the masses are ever going to use it? It sounds a sci-fi scenario to me.

[LoyceV]

Drifting even more from the original post but makes you wonder if a 'proof of cold storage' protocol thing would be good.
Bank "A" signs something that says they have 100BTC
They can then open 10 x 10BTC lightning channels to 10 other financial institutions without having to expose that BTC to 'the real world' until it's time to close them.

Wouldn't they need that 100BTC to create the channels? That means they don't have to prove ownership, just opening channels is all the proof needed.

Without a lot of programming & security I can see it being a nightmare for abuse. BUT I can also see it making the risk assessment that much easier. They don't have to worry as much about hacks if their money is sitting in a 3 of 5 multisig wallet and only gets touched / balanced at the end of the week (or whatever)

Or did you mean they create "virtual" channels from bank to bank, based on the amount in cold storage and settle their mutual payments for instance once a month? I can indeed think of many ways to cheat this (and banks aren't really known for their good morals).

And if you lose and you fail at invalidating the chain?  
Not only do you have a gambling situation on getting the blocks now you add more with the gambling itself

That's not really how odds work. Sure you can lose with gambling, but say you go all-in at "double or nothing". The chance to win is slightly less than 50%. Let's say the chance of a successful double spend is slightly more than 50%. And let's round everything to 50% for convenience. That leaves:
50% chance you win with gambling, and get a 200% return.
25% chance you lose with gambling, succeed at double spending, and get a 100% return.
25% chance you lose with gambling, fail at double spending, and get nothing.
On average, you win 25% at each attempt.

As stompix says, you don't want to use a scenario where if your attack fails you could lose all your money. Instead you want a scenario where if your attack fails, you are left with what you started with. A better approach would be to find a large enough exchange which requires 1-3 confirmations for a bitcoin deposit

Reorganising the Bitcoin blockchain is a whole different level than just doing a double spend.

If bitcoin became the standard for everyday transactions, but in a fractional reserve lending way, it'd have essentially failed as a project

Interesting thought. On a protocol level, I'd say Bitcoin is okay in this scenario. As a Bitcoin user, you can still get on-chain confirmations whether or not a banker tells his clients the sats in their bank account are real. Isn't that similar to what Binance is trying already, when they convinced people to accept 258,940.01 counterfeit Bitcoins?

[o_e_l_e_o]

Reorganising the Bitcoin blockchain is a whole different level than just doing a double spend.

Of course. We seem to be conflating different kinds of attacks here. I initially spoke about Race attacks and Finney attacks, but we seem to have moved on to discussing chain reorganization and 51% attacks. All are quite different and have different costs, risks, and prevention strategies.

Isn't that similar to what Binance is trying already, when they convinced people to accept 258,940.01 counterfeit Bitcoins?

It doesn't even require some fake token or centralized scam chain, though. Any time you deposit your bitcoin to a third party, you run the risk that they are being lent out, invested, spent, etc., without your knowledge and the third party in question is running a fractional reserve system. Centralized exchanges have been caught doing this before, even without the token nonsense.

[BlackHatCoiner]

As a Bitcoin user, you can still get on-chain confirmations whether or not a banker tells his clients the sats in their bank account are real.

Yes, but the demand of those clients for new loans will affect you one way or another; it'll debase bitcoin's market value as it does with national, fiat currencies. I recently saw Coinbase for another time as a payment method, which is horrible. People still prefer handing out their coins to individuals.

I won't be impressed if I ever see a, say, Binance implement such system. Don't they already allow loaning? What's that WBTC you're talking about?

Wrapped Bitcoin (WBTC) is the first ERC20 token backed 1:1 with Bitcoin.

Holy moly. Satoshi would turn in their grave.

Any time you deposit your bitcoin to a third party, you run the risk that they are being lent out, invested, spent, etc., without your knowledge and the third party in question is running a fractional reserve system.

But, this is how the economy works. Money should circulate. When they convince their clients to use an IOU instead of bitcoin is when the real shit starts taking off. I don't cross my arms, but it's illegal to run such system if you haven't announced it at least; these exchanges definitely haven't. No? (reserve site:binance.com)

[DaveF]

]Without a lot of programming & security I can see it being a nightmare for abuse. BUT I can also see it making the risk assessment that much easier. They don't have to worry as much about hacks if their money is sitting in a 3 of 5 multisig wallet and only gets touched / balanced at the end of the week (or whatever)

Or did you mean they create "virtual" channels from bank to bank, based on the amount in cold storage and settle their mutual payments for instance once a month? I can indeed think of many ways to cheat this (and banks aren't really known for their good morals).

Without a doubt you can't trust the bank(s) but this really would be a one shot thing if they scammed.
They could bank "A" could fake something and show banks "B" "C" "D" and "E" that they don't really have.
But, after that they would not be trusted. Other banks would still be able to do business with them, but if they get scammed again well that would be on them.

It's never going to be a perfect system for everyone involved. Too many people on this planet with too many different views of money and what they want to do with it.
Looking at things a lot a different ways, even those that are "contrary to what BTC is" will only help to hash out other ideas.

-Dave

[Pmalek]

Interesting discussion and a great source of information for anyone who wants to learn different ways to cheat the system (aka other people, services, and merchants). Sticking to one of the oldest rules in the Bitcoin book still does wonders. Don't release goods before the transaction has received multiple confirmations. Since there is doubt that 1 confirmation is enough, wait for 2, 3, 6, etc.   

[o_e_l_e_o]

I don't cross my arms, but it's illegal to run such system if you haven't announced it at least; these exchanges definitely haven't. No?

Centralized exchanges do all kinds of illegal stuff with no oversight and very little in the way of repercussions. They definitely have a history of running fractional reserve systems and using users' funds for their own profits without the knowledge or consent of the users in question. For example: https://cointelegraph.com/news/two-chinese-exchanges-help-themselves-to-user-funds

Since there is doubt that 1 confirmation is enough, wait for 2, 3, 6, etc.   

It's all relative. One confirmation is plenty for small value transactions, since the cost of the attacks we have discussed above will be significantly more than what an attacker will gain by double spending such a transaction. Different numbers of confirmations are appropriate in different situations.