Could China (or similar) take control of Bitcoin?

[legiteum]

And yes, if a few of us entered the network with altered software, we'd be kicked out. Kicked out by whom? The majority.

No, we wouldn't be part of their network.  We would have established an independent network.  If suddenly, an entity with 51% of the hashrate enforced a 21 trillion cap rule out of nowhere, they wouldn't be accepted by the network.  They would be mining on their own blockchain.  I genuinely wonder why this concept is so challenging to grasp.

We wouldn't be kicked out.  We would have created our own network.  

Not accepted BY WHOM??. You keep in saying the mysterious "they" will not "accept" these nodes. How would this happen? Who are "they"? Why do "they" get to kick nodes out of the network whereas the others don't?

Again, you are inventing a central authority where there isn't one. It's an algorithm, that's all. It resolves conflicts in the network by the majority vote of the hashrate, that's all.

The same reason why Americans haven't declared war on Greenland: because the majority doesn't want that. I don't see why this is so complicated.

The majority of the miners don't want to earn billions of dollars worth of bitcoin.  That's brilliant argument!  

Well, they don't. I would suspect the reason is that many of them are actually major holders of Bitcoin and don't want to denigrate their investment. Also, this would require coordinated collective action. If one miner did this unilaterally, they would lose money. They would need to convince the people running all of the other nodes to follow them, and even finding those people would be next to impossible, let alone convincing them to raise their rates.

Once again, there is no central authority no matter how logically convenient it is to invent one. There is no "miner's union". There is no "spokesman for all f the miners". There is no "miners trust" that represents all of the miners, allowing them to collectively make decisions. Indeed, this is the beauty of the Bitcoin network: there is no central anything.

And this is hard to wrap your head around since everything in our society had thus far been based on centralized power structures, such as tribe councils, governments, unions, community groups, and so on. Bitcoin doesn't work that way, and I think it's really, really hard for some to grasp the implications of that.

No, it's the 49% that is no longer Bitcoin, and the 51% that is Bitcoin. That's not what I want, or what you want, but that's what the algorithm wants.

Okay, you refuse to understand the reality.  Could you demonstrate the algorithm which allows the majority of the miners to enforce their own consensus rules?  

They don't "enforce their own consensus rules", they use the consensus rules to their advantage because, since they are the majority, they prevail.

Here's another quote from the Bitcoin docs:

"Only if you acquired a majority of the network’s hashing power could you reliably execute such a 51 percent attack against transaction history (although, it should be noted, that even less than 50% of the hashing power still has a good chance of performing such attacks)."

https://developer.bitcoin.org/devguide/block_chain.html

Here's another article talking about the "51% attack" on Bitcoin:

https://www.investopedia.com/terms/1/51-attack.asp


Look, if you don't want to read any of this, I think we're wasting our time here. This is going around in circles...

[Medusah]

Not accepted BY WHOM??.

Let's say you're running the original Bitcoin protocol with its 21 million coin cap.  Now, imagine I show up with a modified set of rules and send you a transaction where I award myself 1 million coins.  Even if I control all the hashing power, your node wouldn't accept that block because it violates the rules you're following.  It would be deemed invalid.

There's no central authority here.  It's a decentralized system of nodes, each enforcing its own set of rules.

Well, they don't. I would suspect the reason is that many of them are actually major holders of Bitcoin and don't want to denigrate their investment.

They're afraid of "denigrating their investment," lmao!  All the miners need to do is come to an internal agreement—it's not like they can't work together, they already do through mining pools.  If they want more rewards, they can simply propose it to each other.  That's the exact opposite of "denigrating their investment". 

And who's going to stand in their way if they're the ones making all the decisions?   

Here's another quote from the Bitcoin docs:

"Only if you acquired a majority of the network’s hashing power could you reliably execute such a 51 percent attack against transaction history (although, it should be noted, that even less than 50% of the hashing power still has a good chance of performing such attacks)."

The 51% attack targets transaction history, not consensus rules.  That's why I asked for the algorithm, it's clear that you don't know what you're talking about.  Gaining 51% of the hashrate only gives you the ability to reverse transactions, nothing more. 

[legiteum]

Not accepted BY WHOM??.

Let's say you're running the original Bitcoin protocol with its 21 million coin cap.  Now, imagine I show up with a modified set of rules and send you a transaction where I award myself 1 million coins.  Even if I control all the hashing power, your node wouldn't accept that block because it violates the rules you're following.  It would be deemed invalid.

There's no central authority here.  It's a decentralized system of nodes, each enforcing its own set of rules.

In that scenario, my node would be meaningless as I would no longer be considered part of the network by the algorithm. The attacked would be Bitcoin and I would be not-Bitcoin.

Well, they don't. I would suspect the reason is that many of them are actually major holders of Bitcoin and don't want to denigrate their investment.

They're afraid of "denigrating their investment," lmao!  All the miners need to do is come to an internal agreement—it's not like they can't work together, they already do through mining pools.  If they want more rewards, they can simply propose it to each other.  That's the exact opposite of "denigrating their investment". 

An "internal agreement". Oh, you mean the Miner's Union, right? Or was it the Association of Bitcoin Miners (ABM)? Or some other central authority you keep inventing out of thin air?

Here's another quote from the Bitcoin docs:

"Only if you acquired a majority of the network’s hashing power could you reliably execute such a 51 percent attack against transaction history (although, it should be noted, that even less than 50% of the hashing power still has a good chance of performing such attacks)."

The 51% attack targets transaction history, not consensus rules.  That's why I asked for the algorithm, it's clear that you don't know what you're talking about.  Gaining 51% of the hashrate only gives you the ability to reverse transactions, nothing more. 

It gives you the ability to make the software do whatever you want it to do. You don't seem to understand how software works in general. Once a fork owns the network, then that fork (assuming it's controlled by a coordinated entity) can re-write the software in any way it wants.

You don't find it strange that the whole world recognizes the specifically-named "Bitcoin 51% attack" except you?

[Medusah]

You don't find it strange that the whole world recognizes the specifically-named "Bitcoin 51% attack" except you?

I've wasted my time engaging with a troll.  The entire world recognizes the 51% attack as "double-spending", not "rule changing".  If you had actually read the whitepaper, you would have noticed that satoshi himself refers to double-spending.  In fact, he emphasizes that arbitrary rules cannot be enforced at will:

We consider the scenario of an attacker trying to generate an alternate chain faster than the honest chain. Even if this is accomplished, it does not throw the system open to arbitrary changes, such as creating value out of thin air or taking money that never belonged to the attacker.

There's not anything else to say.  Satoshi himself agrees with me. 

[legiteum]

You don't find it strange that the whole world recognizes the specifically-named "Bitcoin 51% attack" except you?

I've wasted my time engaging with a troll.  The entire world recognizes the 51% attack as "double-spending", not "rule changing".  If you had actually read the whitepaper, you would have noticed that satoshi himself refers to double-spending.  In fact, he emphasizes that arbitrary rules cannot be enforced at will:

We consider the scenario of an attacker trying to generate an alternate chain faster than the honest chain. Even if this is accomplished, it does not throw the system open to arbitrary changes, such as creating value out of thin air or taking money that never belonged to the attacker.

There's not anything else to say.  Satoshi himself agrees with me. 

He was not talking about a 51% attack there, merely a "20% attack", etc. The arbiter of what is the "true chain" is... the 51%. And double-spending is... what you would do if you took over the network. Indeed, the entire reason the network exists is to prevent double spending, so if you don't prevent that, then nothing else matters.

Regardless, you've moved the goalposts, which I guess is a good sign.

Bitcoin can be taken over by China or some other large country capable of capturing 51% of the hashrate. If you want to call that something else, then fine. But the bottom line is that it's not "impossible" to take over Bitcoin, only very very difficult and available only to large nation-state actors.

But the notion that Bitcoin is "impossible to take over" is a false one.

[Medusah]

The arbiter of what is the "true chain" is... the 51%.

He clearly emphasizes that a 51% attack, which is what an attacker's chain growing faster than the honest is, does not grant the attacker arbitrary power to change the protocol.

I find it surprising that you, and seemingly no one else that I've encountered, hold the misconception that 51% of the hashrate can dictate protocol rules to the remaining 49%.  I wonder what other misconceptions about Bitcoin I will come across in my lifetime. 

[legiteum]

The arbiter of what is the "true chain" is... the 51%.

He clearly emphasizes that a 51% attack, which is what an attacker's chain growing faster than the honest is, does not grant the attacker arbitrary power to change the protocol.

I find it surprising that you, and seemingly no one else that I've encountered, hold the misconception that 51% of the hashrate can dictate protocol rules to the remaining 49%.  I wonder what other misconceptions about Bitcoin I will come across in my lifetime.  

Ever wonder why people talk about the "51% attack" on Bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies? Doesn't it make you wonder what they are talking about?

And I think the majority of the posters here--and most of the ones who have engaged in the conversation in a non-superficial way--acknowledge that such an attack is possible.

But it it makes you feel better to think that it's "impossible" to corrupt the Bitcoin network even for a major superpower like China, I guess you should go ahead and... feel that way...

[Medusah]

Ever wonder why people talk about the "51% attack" on Bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies? Doesn't it make you wonder what they are talking about?

They're talking about an entity that possesses enough hashrate to rewrite the entire blockchain or render the network inoperative by generating empty blocks. 

But it it makes you feel better to think that it's "impossible" to corrupt the Bitcoin network even for a major superpower like China, I guess you should go ahead and... feel that way...

I don't consider it "impossible" to successfully execute a 51% attack, don't misinterpret my statement.  What I find impossible within these networks is the ability to enforce your protocol rules on others without their agreement. 

[Wind_FURY]

The arbiter of what is the "true chain" is... the 51%.

He clearly emphasizes that a 51% attack, which is what an attacker's chain growing faster than the honest is, does not grant the attacker arbitrary power to change the protocol.

I find it surprising that you, and seemingly no one else that I've encountered, hold the misconception that 51% of the hashrate can dictate protocol rules to the remaining 49%.  I wonder what other misconceptions about Bitcoin I will come across in my lifetime.  

Ever wonder why people talk about the "51% attack" on Bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies? Doesn't it make you wonder what they are talking about?

And I think the majority of the posters here--and most of the ones who have engaged in the conversation in a non-superficial way--acknowledge that such an attack is possible.

But it it makes you feel better to think that it's "impossible" to corrupt the Bitcoin network even for a major superpower like China, I guess you should go ahead and... feel that way...

Theoretically possible, but practically it would be a very expensive attack on the network, which the community and the Economic Majority will get consensus to kick the attacker out of the network - merely for one double-spend. For all of that money spent on buying ASICs and all of that effort on the logistics in setting up their mining farms, it would be more viable/profitable to actually mine Bitcoin, and get paid in Bitcoin.

[legiteum]

Theoretically possible, but practically it would be a very expensive attack on the network, which the community and the Economic Majority will get consensus to kick the attacker out of the network - merely for one double-spend. For all of that money spent on buying ASICs and all of that effort on the logistics in setting up their mining farms, it would be more viable/profitable to actually mine Bitcoin, and get paid in Bitcoin.

Again, incorrect. Bitcoin is a proof-of-work model, not a proof-of-stake model like some other cryptos out there. There is no such thing as an "Economic Majority" with Bitcoin. The only majority that means anything with Bitcoin is the work (hashrate) majority.

And presumably any entity that launched an attack like this wouldn't buy a single ASIC, they would merely take over existing systems, either by legal decree or clandestinely.

[Wind_FURY]

Theoretically possible, but practically it would be a very expensive attack on the network, which the community and the Economic Majority will get consensus to kick the attacker out of the network - merely for one double-spend. For all of that money spent on buying ASICs and all of that effort on the logistics in setting up their mining farms, it would be more viable/profitable to actually mine Bitcoin, and get paid in Bitcoin.

Again, incorrect. Bitcoin is a proof-of-work model, not a proof-of-stake model like some other cryptos out there. There is no such thing as an "Economic Majority" with Bitcoin. The only majority that means anything with Bitcoin is the work (hashrate) majority.

And presumably any entity that launched an attack like this wouldn't buy a single ASIC, they would merely take over existing systems, either by legal decree or clandestinely.

Although we could perhaps agree that it's debatable, the Economic Majority in Bitcoin are those who are willing to build things/services that provide more value to the network/community. It's hard to dispute that fact, because if no one from the community follows the miners then how are miners going to be incentivized by a distribution of coins that are going down in value?

The miners' hashing power majority are not the "all-power" in the network. I believe the UASF proved that. The miners could play a political game, but actually, all they want to be is to be incentivized for the security provided. But IF ALL of them are taken over, then the same problem, the community will probably get to consensus to change the mining algorithm. Perhaps, I don't know.

Plus a 51% attack will give the majority hashing power to censor transactions, not actually steal or change wallet balances. The army of full nodes will reject/not let those transactions/blocks propagate.

[legiteum]

Although we could perhaps agree that it's debatable, the Economic Majority in Bitcoin are those who are willing to build things/services that provide more value to the network/community. It's hard to dispute that fact, because if no one from the community follows the miners then how are miners going to be incentivized by a distribution of coins that are going down in value?

The miners' hashing power majority are not the "all-power" in the network. I believe the UASF proved that. The miners could play a political game, but actually, all they want to be is to be incentivized for the security provided. But IF ALL of them are taken over, then the same problem, the community will probably get to consensus to change the mining algorithm. Perhaps, I don't know.

Plus a 51% attack will give the majority hashing power to censor transactions, not actually steal or change wallet balances. The army of full nodes will reject/not let those transactions/blocks propagate.

Bitcoin is an algorithm, not a sentient being. There is no human decision being made when a wallet connects to a node, and no human decisions being made in any other important part of the system.

I'm sort of blown away here that, for all of the talk of decentralization around Bitcoin, many don't seem to fully understand the implications of that.

There is no "owner" of Bitcoin. There is no "committee" determining Bitcoin's pathway for each transaction. There is nothing to compel nodes from taking the recommendations of a central committee. There could be a "consensus" achieved among humans in some virtual room somewhere, but that doesn't mean anything if 51%+ of the nodes adopt it.

And while the nodes couldn't actually change the contents of people's individual wallets, that content is rather meaningless if the network doesn't agree with it. In other words, nodes could simply re-write the chain and make up whatever fiction they wanted. If somebody complained and said the chain integrity was false now, they'd effectively reply, "too bad, we're the majority hashrate and what we say goes".

[Wind_FURY]

Although we could perhaps agree that it's debatable, the Economic Majority in Bitcoin are those who are willing to build things/services that provide more value to the network/community. It's hard to dispute that fact, because if no one from the community follows the miners then how are miners going to be incentivized by a distribution of coins that are going down in value?

The miners' hashing power majority are not the "all-power" in the network. I believe the UASF proved that. The miners could play a political game, but actually, all they want to be is to be incentivized for the security provided. But IF ALL of them are taken over, then the same problem, the community will probably get to consensus to change the mining algorithm. Perhaps, I don't know.

Plus a 51% attack will give the majority hashing power to censor transactions, not actually steal or change wallet balances. The army of full nodes will reject/not let those transactions/blocks propagate.

Bitcoin is an algorithm, not a sentient being. There is no human decision being made when a wallet connects to a node, and no human decisions being made in any other important part of the system.

I'm sort of blown away here that, for all of the talk of decentralization around Bitcoin, many don't seem to fully understand the implications of that.

There is no "owner" of Bitcoin. There is no "committee" determining Bitcoin's pathway for each transaction. There is nothing to compel nodes from taking the recommendations of a central committee. There could be a "consensus" achieved among humans in some virtual room somewhere, but that doesn't mean anything if 51%+ of the nodes adopt it.

And while the nodes couldn't actually change the contents of people's individual wallets, that content is rather meaningless if the network doesn't agree with it. In other words, nodes could simply re-write the chain and make up whatever fiction they wanted. If somebody complained and said the chain integrity was false now, they'd effectively reply, "too bad, we're the majority hashrate and what we say goes".

¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Reading your post made me very confused if you're confused, or I'm confused.



Neither the content in your post made sense, nor did it show that you were trying to understand the point that I was making. Sentient being, what?

But OK, you do you.

[legiteum]

Reading your post made me very confused if you're confused, or I'm confused.

Neither the content in your post made sense, nor did it show that you were trying to understand the point that I was making. Sentient being, what?

Sorry about that. I'll try to clarify.

There are a few responses to this thread that seem to indicate that there is some central authority of people controlling Bitcoin, which there is not.

Most people know that fact alone, but then go on to imagine... a central authority controlling Bitcoin. In other words, they say that if somebody attacks the Bitcoin network in some way, "they will get together and stop it". But who is they? There is no "they". There is just an algorithm written in code. That's the whole point of decentralization.

My point about there being no "sentient being" was just to illustrate that code is not sentient, it just does what it was programmed to do.

Hence if a majority of the hashrate was taken over by malign forces, the software would continue to do... whatever it does. It doesn't matter what people think.

As we discussed in another thread, right now there are two mining companies that make up over half of the Bitcoin hashrate. If these two companies were compelled by a government, or infiltrated clandestinely, or extorted then... the attacker would effectively control Bitcoin in its entirety, and no human being would be able to say any different even if "experts" knew exactly what was happening after the fact.

[stompix]

Theoretically possible, but practically it would be a very expensive attack on the network, which the community and the Economic Majority will get consensus to kick the attacker out of the network - merely for one double-spend. For all of that money spent on buying ASICs and all of that effort on the logistics in setting up their mining farms, it would be more viable/profitable to actually mine Bitcoin, and get paid in Bitcoin.

You can't kick anyone from the network! Permissionless!!! Remember?
Some miners could collude on accepting only on building their blocks on top of each other and ignore blocks mined by 'the and guy" but as long as the attacker has a 51% and thus more work in it every node will accept their chain, nodes won't be able to tell what is good and what is bad, ghash double spend attack showed that pretty well.
And even forking the chain won't do any good either, that attacker will just abandon their chain and do it again on the new "true" fork, there is absolutely nothing hat can be done in this scenario that doesn't imply centralization and that's just as worse.

As for the money thing, we're talking about a superpower trying to bring down the network if it sees it as a threat, if you are willing to spend 300 billion to bail out your friends to not have your Belt project canceled,  6-8 billion in bringing down a currency perceived as more dangerous than the USD will be looking as peanuts.

Although we could perhaps agree that it's debatable, the Economic Majority in Bitcoin are those who are willing to build things/services that provide more value to the network/community. It's hard to dispute that fact, because if no one from the community follows the miners then how are miners going to be incentivized by a distribution of coins that are going down in value?

It started as this:

As the theory goes, if China wanted to wreak havoc on the world economy, or if it wanted to extract a ransom, or if it simply wanted to profit by inserting its own blocks, then... it could.

So we're talking about an evil entity bent on destroying things and bankrupting others, economic incentives turn into political ones and the math behind costs and targets is completely different.

[pinggoki]

I don't believe they'd be able to do that, there's bound to be a resistance from a lot of people and at the same time, it's also really difficult for someone to maintain that kind of control because when people get the wind of the scheme of taking control of the network, the community will definitely find a way to make sure that bitcoin wouldn't be succumbing to that control. Also, wouldn't the developers be able to do something about it in the case that bitcoin network gets controlled or something like that? Also, look at China's perspective when it comes to this kind of thing, they don't see the long-term benefit of controlling bitcoin because bitcoin isn't as global as it should be right now, if they really want a way to disrupt the economy, the best thing that they should do is to put all of their efforts into creating their own dollars, what I mean is creating superdollars, that's the way to make things destabilize especially in a USD driven global market.

[Wind_FURY]

Theoretically possible, but practically it would be a very expensive attack on the network, which the community and the Economic Majority will get consensus to kick the attacker out of the network - merely for one double-spend. For all of that money spent on buying ASICs and all of that effort on the logistics in setting up their mining farms, it would be more viable/profitable to actually mine Bitcoin, and get paid in Bitcoin.

You can't kick anyone from the network! Permissionless!!! Remember?

But if an Actual Attack threatens the very existence of Bitcoin, then the community will altogether get community consensus to defend it, no?

¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Plus do you actually believe that it will depend merely on the plebs of BitcoinTalk to defend the network? The Core Developers, the miners, and the economic majority will defend it.

About "what if", I accept that it's possible that Bitcoin could be "controlled" by a state-level actor. BUT it would also be possible that the Core Developers, the miners, the economic majority, and the community/users in general will fork away and be in the chain that will be called Bitcoin. The state-level actor chain will not matter, it will be Govcoin with centralized control. Haha.

[tsaroz]

Bitcoin's value is derived from trust. I don't think no government wants to fully control it but theoretically if they did, the day a government controls Bitcoin, it's dead. No one would use bitcoin and just move into another coin. Controlling itself might have more than one explanations but anyway it's not a good outlook.
I guess in past at a moment of time, it was technically possible for even a single private company to take control of Bitcoin but they not only didn't do that but also out of moral responsibility decreased it's share so that it won't be capable of taking control of the network. They could have controlled it but no one benefits from it and bitcoin loses it trust.

[legiteum]

I don't believe they'd be able to do that, there's bound to be a resistance from a lot of people and at the same time, it's also really difficult for someone to maintain that kind of control because when people get the wind of the scheme of taking control of the network, the community will definitely find a way to make sure that bitcoin wouldn't be succumbing to that control. Also, wouldn't the developers be able to do something about it in the case that bitcoin network gets controlled or something like that?

There are no people controlling Bitcoin.

There is no "community" (in heavy scare quotes) controlling Bitcoin.

Randomly organized "developers" do not control Bitcoin.

Bitcoin is an algorithm. It is in no way centrally controlled, except by a majority of the hashrate.

About "what if", I accept that it's possible that Bitcoin could be "controlled" by a state-level actor. BUT it would also be possible that the Core Developers, the miners, the economic majority, and the community/users in general will fork away and be in the chain that will be called Bitcoin. The state-level actor chain will not matter, it will be Govcoin with centralized control. Haha.

If some entity took over the current Bitcoin chain, it's all of those people you mentioned who wouldn't matter. Anybody, including those people, are free to start over with a completely new network and new blockchain, but the current $1.5 trillion in Bitcoin would be controlled by the attacker, not them.

[stompix]

~

But if an Actual Attack threatens the very existence of Bitcoin, then the community will altogether get community consensus to defend it, no?

How? Tell me how you can defend against such an attack, let's say that China manages to get ahold of two similar-sized farms like Anpool and Foundry,  from block 848009 to block 848022 those two pool have managed to mine 13 out of 14 blocks, how and why would node reject them? How would you ban their blocks?
There is no actual mechanism to "defend" against what is a valid block!

About "what if", I accept that it's possible that Bitcoin could be "controlled" by a state-level actor. BUT it would also be possible that the Core Developers, the miners, the economic majority, and the community/users in general will fork away and be in the chain that will be called Bitcoin. The state-level actor chain will not matter, it will be Govcoin with centralized control. Haha.

Again you seem to not understand that even if you fork your chain and keep being legit you have no way to stop the mining entity with 51% attacking the new chain again, this is what happened to ETC:
https://neptunemutual.com/blog/ethereum-classic-51-attacks/
as long as you're not able to have more hashrate than the attacker you're a continuous victim until you change the algorithm and that will last only until they get again the 51% with the new machines.

You keep saying economic majority, developers, miners, but what can they actually do?