Could China (or similar) take control of Bitcoin?

[Medusah]

If miners representing 51% of the hashrate all decided to do something, then that would be the reality of Bitcoin.

No.  Bitcoin is not ruled by miners.  If it was, they could alter the consensus rules and give themselves more bitcoin in block rewards.  So, why don't they?  They lack the authority to dictate the consensus rules.  That's why. 

Again, what is stopping them? What central authority can you point to who would stop them from doing anything they wanted?

There's no central authority, but it's akin to confronting a train with broken brakes hurtling towards them, and convincing the people aboard to adopt their rules is their challenge. 

That's how Bitcoin works. It's called a Proof-of-Work model.

In Proof-of-Work, miners hold full control over the order of the transactions, which enables a malicious miner (with sufficient hash power) to rearrange transactions, potentially resulting in double-spending.  However, this is the extent of their capability.  They cannot create new rules, or change existing ones. 

Here's satoshi's words, directly from the whitepaper (11. Calculations):

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. Nodes are not going to accept an invalid transaction as payment, and honest nodes will never accept a block containing them. An attacker can only try to change one of his own transactions to take back money he recently spent.

[legiteum]

If miners representing 51% of the hashrate all decided to do something, then that would be the reality of Bitcoin.

No.  Bitcoin is not ruled by miners.  If it was, they could alter the consensus rules and give themselves more bitcoin in block rewards.  So, why don't they?  They lack the authority to dictate the consensus rules.  That's why.

So who do you suppose dictates the "consensus rules"? What are their names? Where do they live? Who has this "authority" you keep talking about?

See, if they are identifiable individuals who could simply decide not to let certain servers join the network because they allege them to be unfriendly for the cause, then Bitcoin is by that definition absolutely, positively centralized. In other words, China (or whatever government) could locate and subpoena them and make them do their bidding.

But Bitcoin is not centralized. It's a proof-of-work model, and any server, owned by whomever, and plugged in for whatever purpose, can join the network and have a vote in the hashrate, which gives them a vote on control of the network itself.

Again, what is stopping them? What central authority can you point to who would stop them from doing anything they wanted?

There's no central authority, but it's akin to confronting a train with broken brakes hurtling towards them, and convincing the people aboard to adopt their rules is their challenge.  

Convincing whom?? Who are these "people" you keep saying need to be "convinced"? And what are they "convinced" by?

You don't seem to understand how Bitcoin--or any decentralized network--actually works. There is no "authority" who would "do the right thing" according to what "the people" want. There are no people involved in the decision at all.

That's how Bitcoin works. It's called a Proof-of-Work model.

In Proof-of-Work, miners hold full control over the order of the transactions, which enables a malicious miner (with sufficient hash power) to rearrange transactions, potentially resulting in double-spending.  However, this is the extent of their capability.  They cannot create new rules, or change existing ones.  

Here's satoshi's words, directly from the whitepaper (11. Calculations):

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. Nodes are not going to accept an invalid transaction as payment, and honest nodes will never accept a block containing them. An attacker can only try to change one of his own transactions to take back money he recently spent.

Who is to say what is "honest" and "dishonest"? It's a majority vote. In that context Satoshi was talking about individual attackers or small factions that would do "bad" (as defined by the majority) things.

If the majority accepts a payment, then that's the law of the land. There's no person anywhere in this decision making process. It's entirely algorithmic. There are no "China servers" and "non-China servers". There are no "good servers" and "evil severs". Just... servers--servers that run software that can decide what is true and what is false. What is a valid chain and what is invalid.

And if people here on Bitcointalk said, "how terrible, this group of nodes is doing the calculations all wrong because they changed the software", you know what we, collectively, could do about it? Absolutely nothing. (Although, again, major holders of Bitcoin would fall over themselves to make peace with the new owners lest they lose their investments).

[Medusah]

So who do you suppose dictates the "consensus rules"? What are their names? Where do they live? Who has this "authority" you keep talking about?

No one dictates the consensus rules.  Describing it as such is inaccurate.  The term 'consensus' stems from the Latin word 'concentus', which denotes singing in harmony.  Harmony cannot be forced; it naturally emerges from the collective agreement which reflects a unified understanding. 

Convincing whom?? Who are these "people" you keep saying need to be "convinced"? And what are they "convinced" by?

In Bitcoin, initiating a rule change involves public proposal and observing people's responses.  There's no need to individually convince anyone.  You propose the change, implement it, and then it's left to others to decide whether to adopt it.  If you enforce a change that breaks backward compatibility (like altering the supply cap) on your node, you're effectively outside the existing Bitcoin network, forming a new one.  Now, it's up to your convincing skills to persuade that this network represents the 'true Bitcoin'. 

[legiteum]

So who do you suppose dictates the "consensus rules"? What are their names? Where do they live? Who has this "authority" you keep talking about?

No one dictates the consensus rules.  Describing it as such is inaccurate.  The term 'consensus' stems from the Latin word 'concentus', which denotes singing in harmony.  Harmony cannot be forced; it naturally emerges from the collective agreement which reflects a unified understanding.  

Convincing whom?? Who are these "people" you keep saying need to be "convinced"? And what are they "convinced" by?

In Bitcoin, initiating a rule change involves public proposal and observing people's responses.  There's no need to individually convince anyone.  You propose the change, implement it, and then it's left to others to decide whether to adopt it.  If you enforce a change that breaks backward compatibility (like altering the supply cap) on your node, you're effectively outside the existing Bitcoin network, forming a new one.  Now, it's up to your convincing skills to persuade that this network represents the 'true Bitcoin'.  

Good. You are starting to understand. Now ask yourself, what if servers representing 51% of the hashrate adopted some changes that, say, the other 49% vehemently objected to? They would "win the argument", correct?

Now imagine that the 51% were operating under orders from the Chinese government, and thus adopted the fork that the CCP created for their own purposes, which included software changes that inserted their own blocks in place of other people's blocks.

There wouldn't be anything anybody could do about this, short of an act of war. American Bitcoin owners, ironically, would appeal to the US government to have their (eeek!) government pressure or otherwise make war on China for essentially stealing billions of dollars in American property.

Again, there's no reason to believe the China or any other major country with the kind of money to pull this off (figure, the top 20 economies in the world) are planning on doing so anytime soon, but it's absolutely incorrect to say that Bitcoin is "government-proof" or that it cannot be toppled by any government. Bitcoin exists along side every single product humans use on a daily basis that can be eliminated by government decree in a millisecond should the majority or the dictator favor it.

[Medusah]

Good. You are starting to understand. Now ask yourself, what if servers representing 51% of the hashrate adopted some changes that, say, the other 49% vehemently objected to? They would "win the argument", correct?

There's no debate to be won; that's my point.  People are free to run any software they choose.  You could modify the Bitcoin source code to increase the total coins to 21 trillion, effectively 'altering' the Bitcoin protocol.  The burden lies on you to persuade me to adopt it.  You don't require majority hashrate or financial dominance.  By creating another network, you've essentially birthed an altcoin.  No 'majority' is necessary for this action; that's the elegance of decentralized systems. 

There wouldn't be anything anybody could do about this, short of an act of war.

Of course and there would be.  The solution is simple: don't run their software.  If the CCP modified the source code to increase miners' block subsidies, Americans could opt out of using it.  Consequently, we'd end up with two separate networks—one controlled by the CCP and the other by the rest of the world.  The CCP cannot force the rest of the world to use their network. 

The concern arises if the CCP aimed to dismantle Bitcoin through a 51% attack, which is currently possible.  This scenario is what would be beyond prevention and essentially constitute an act of war.  But that's not the point you're making.  You're arguing that China can control the Bitcoin protocol, which is an entirely separate matter. 

[legiteum]

Good. You are starting to understand. Now ask yourself, what if servers representing 51% of the hashrate adopted some changes that, say, the other 49% vehemently objected to? They would "win the argument", correct?

There's no debate to be won; that's my point.  People are free to run any software they choose.  You could modify the Bitcoin source code to increase the total coins to 21 trillion, effectively 'altering' the Bitcoin protocol.  The burden lies on you to persuade me to adopt it.  You don't require majority hashrate or financial dominance.  By creating another network, you've essentially birthed an altcoin.  No 'majority' is necessary for this action; that's the elegance of decentralized systems.  

Sure, you may no longer want to buy Bitcoin after China has taken over the network, but there are millions of current holders of Bitcoin who would want to protect their investment. They would be stuck using the Bitcoin network, which will have been taken over by China.

(By the way, this who thread of conversation presumes one could even know which servers were "evil" and which were not--but in practicality that could be easily obscured by the attacker).

There wouldn't be anything anybody could do about this, short of an act of war.

Of course and there would be.  The solution is simple: don't run their software.

But not running "their" software is akin to throwing your Bitcoin away. Your blocks would be worthless. (And again, how would any individual know who "they" are in real-time?)

And why exactly would one want to create an alternative "Bitcoin2" in that situation anyhow, since China could just take over that one as well?

The reality is that if this happened, major holders of Bitcoin would make peace with either: a) make peace with the attacker to protect their investment; and/or b) appeal to the only military power in the world capable of protecting them. e.g. the US government, in order to forcibly make the attacker relinquish control of the network.

***

Understanding the implications of a truly decentralized network is hard to wrap your head around .

Satoshi invented a scheme that no central authority would ordinarily control, but the only way to do that is by majority vote, e.g. democracy (in this case, democracy of computing power). In other words, a truly decentralized system cannot be governed by people it must only be governed by an algorithm. If individuals were able to simply choose their own servers to store their data, then bad actors could commit fraud and the network would be untrustworthy. In a decentralized network governed by proof-of-work, there can be no concept of identifying a node in the network because the only thing you can trust is the work, not the IP address, not the alleged owner, not anything else.

***

By the way, from the second paragraph of the Introduction in the original Bitcoin whitepaper, there is this line:

"The system is secure as long as honest nodes collectively control more CPU power than any cooperating group of attacker nodes."

[Medusah]

Sure, you may no longer want to buy Bitcoin after China has taken over the network, but there are millions of current holders of Bitcoin who would want to protect their investment. They would be stuck using the Bitcoin network, which will have been taken over by China.

No, there would exist two separate Bitcoin networks: one in China and one outside China.  Bitcoin holders would receive an equivalent amount of bitcoins they hold on the Chinese network.  A comparable event occurred in 2017 with the launch of Bitcoin Cash. Guess what happened: many people exchanged their Bitcoin Cash for Bitcoin, resulting in an increase in their Bitcoin holdings.  

(By the way, this who thread of conversation presumes one could even know which servers were "evil" and which were not--but in practicality that could be easily obscured by the attacker).

It is completely possible to view which node supports the Chinese rules.  

But not running "their" software is akin to throwing your Bitcoin away. Your blocks would be worthless. (And again, how would any individual know who "they" are in real-time?)

So, you're also relying on the assumption that all of the hashrate is owned by China.  Do you know that the Chinese government can't force miners outside its borders to cease operations?  

[legiteum]

Sure, you may no longer want to buy Bitcoin after China has taken over the network, but there are millions of current holders of Bitcoin who would want to protect their investment. They would be stuck using the Bitcoin network, which will have been taken over by China.

No, there would exist two separate Bitcoin networks: one in China and one outside China.  Bitcoin holders would receive an equivalent amount of bitcoins they hold on the Chinese network.  A comparable event occurred in 2017 with the launch of Bitcoin Cash. Guess what happened: many people exchanged their Bitcoin Cash for Bitcoin, resulting in an increase in their Bitcoin holdings.  

Yes, but how would you know which one is which? A node is a node. You couldn't just say, "I trust those node but not these nodes". There is no notion of known identity in the Bitcoin network, which is the whole point.

Again, you simply don't seem to understand the implications of a decentralized network. There is no "middle". There is no "community" that "decides".

And the situation with Bitcoin Cash was not even remotely comparable.

(By the way, this who thread of conversation presumes one could even know which servers were "evil" and which were not--but in practicality that could be easily obscured by the attacker).

It is completely possible to view which node supports the Chinese rules.  

Really? How? Is every single wallet going to do the mining themselves? And why would you trust that wallet? Remember that in this situation, there would be millions of the "evil" mixed in with the "good". The only way to tell the difference is proof-of-work. Every single wallet, every single node, and every single actor in this situation is going to say they are on the "good" side. This isn't as simple as saying, "everybody will just ignore the bad guys", because there's absolutely no way to tell, in real time, who the bad guys are--and the software doesn't have any sort of notion of "opinions" in it in any case.

But not running "their" software is akin to throwing your Bitcoin away. Your blocks would be worthless. (And again, how would any individual know who "they" are in real-time?)

So, you're also relying on the assumption that all of the hashrate is owned by China.  Do you know that the Chinese government can't force miners outside its borders to cease operations?  

No, I'm positing here a situation wherein China or some other central entity inserts nodes into the network amounting to 51% of the hashrate. China (and probably about 10 other countries across the world) have plenty of money and computing power to do it.

And of course the assumption here would be that they would distribute their attack, e.g. coordinate servers in many countries, or even take over servers.

You keep assuming that the network "just knows" what the "right thing" is. That's not how it works. Bitcoin is an algorithm and nothing else. And if it were anything else, it would be... centralized!

[Medusah]

Yes, but how would you know which one is which? A node is a node. You couldn't just say, "I trust those node but not these nodes".

You shouldn't be trusting nodes to begin with.  "Don't trust, verify" is the principle.  Chinese and non-Chinese nodes won't communicate, much like how Bitcoin Cash nodes don't interact with Bitcoin nodes.  They adhere to different protocols.

Really? How?

My friend, I'm honestly starting to wonder if you're trolling or simply lacking basic technical expertise.  Anyone can span a network; that's the essence of decentralization.  You could create "Bitcoin 2.0", and it would work perfectly well.  But, you wouldn't be able to communicate with Bitcoin nodes because you've agreed upon a different set of rules.

No, I'm positing here a situation wherein China or some other central entity inserts nodes into the network amounting to 51% of the hashrate.

And I'm clarifying for another time:  They cannot force us to follow their new rules.  Their authority (in Proof-of-Work) extends only to determining the order of transactions.  If they were to alter the rules, they would no longer be part of the Bitcoin network.  This would result in a chain split, with Bitcoin holders having two separate "Bitcoin" networks.  While Chinese holders might prefer their Chinese network, they cannot compel the rest of the world to adhere to their lead.  

Allow me to illustrate it this way:  If the CCP mandated their miners to enforce a new cap of 21 trillion BTC, the rest of the world would lose all Chinese hashrate, as Chinese miners would be working on a separate network.  

[legiteum]

Yes, but how would you know which one is which? A node is a node. You couldn't just say, "I trust those node but not these nodes".

You shouldn't be trusting nodes to begin with.  "Don't trust, verify" is the principle.  Chinese and non-Chinese nodes won't communicate, much like how Bitcoin Cash nodes don't interact with Bitcoin nodes.  They adhere to different protocols.

Yep, and the way you verify a node is the work it performs. If it performs the work, it's a good node. If it doesn't, it's not. That's all the software knows.

Therefore there would be no way of telling what is a "good" node and a "bad" node. They are all just nodes, and it somebody takes over 51% of them, they win.

Really? How?

My friend, I'm honestly starting to wonder if you're trolling or simply lacking basic technical expertise.  Anyone can span a network; that's the essence of decentralization.  You could create "Bitcoin 2.0", and it would work perfectly well.  But, you wouldn't be able to communicate with Bitcoin nodes because you've agreed upon a different set of rules.

Quite the contrary, you continue to demonstrate that you simply don't understand how Bitcoin even works. You continue to reference a central authority that is going to "disagree" with bad nodes that does. not. exist.

Anybody can create a Bitcoin node and join the network. Anybody. Anybody. Not join the "Bitcoin 2.0" network, join the currently operational "Bitcoin 1.0" network.

How do you suppose Bitcoin's current nodes got there in the first place? Did they ask permission of that central authority you keep saying exists somewhere?

No, I'm positing here a situation wherein China or some other central entity inserts nodes into the network amounting to 51% of the hashrate.

And I'm clarifying for another time:  They cannot force us to follow their new rules.  Their authority (in Proof-of-Work) extends only to determining the order of transactions.  If they were to alter the rules, they would no longer be part of the Bitcoin network.  

This would result in a chain split, with Bitcoin holders having two separate "Bitcoin" networks.  While Chinese holders might prefer their Chinese network, they cannot compel the rest of the world to adhere to their lead.  

How would any software, in real time, know they are altering the rules?

And for the umpteenth time here, nodes on a network don't have different-colored skin, do not speak with an accent, do not have a red flag with a star on them, and so on. There is no way of knowing what is a "Chinese" node or an "Iranian" node or whatever country is trying to do this.

Allow me to illustrate it this way:  If the CCP mandated their miners to enforce a new cap of 21 trillion BTC, the rest of the world would lose all Chinese hashrate, as Chinese miners would be working on a separate network.  

How would the "rest of the world" actually ignore servers they thought were bad? What actual technical mechanism would be employed. Please show me the source code of the algorithm that wallets would employ in order to bypass the "bad" nodes in favor of the "good" nodes.

This is simply not how Bitcoin works. People do not decide for themselves which nodes they will talk to, because if they did, the system would not work.

And this bears repeating because it's crystal clear that Satoshi himself understood the risk of the network very, very well:


"The system is secure as long as honest nodes collectively control more CPU power than any cooperating group of attacker nodes."

[Medusah]

Therefore there would be no way of telling what is a "good" node and a "bad" node. They are all just nodes, and it somebody takes over 51% of them, they win.

Nope, a node that imposes a cap of 21 trillion isn't considered a 'good' node, regardless of the amount of hashrate they possess. 

You continue to reference a central authority that is going to "disagree" with bad nodes that does. not. exist.

I am NOT referring to any central authority.  It's the nodes within the current network that will refuse connections from nodes using different protocols.  What's hard to understand about that?

How do you suppose Bitcoin's current nodes got there in the first place? Did they ask permission of that central authority you keep saying exists somewhere?

They connect because they adhere to the same protocol.  If one of them makes even a minor alteration to the protocol within its client, it no longer remains part of their network. 

How would any software, in real time, know they are altering the rules?

If a node from China connects to one from outside China and the Chinese node sends a transaction that's only valid according to Chinese rules, the non-Chinese node will refuse it and potentially blacklist the Chinese node. 

And for the umpteenth time here, nodes on a network don't have different-colored skin, do not speak with an accent, do not have a red flag with a star on them, and so on.

Lmao, they do.  It's called consensus:  https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Consensus. 

"The system is secure as long as honest nodes collectively control more CPU power than any cooperating group of attacker nodes."

This has nothing to do with protocol rules.  If you actually read satoshi, it explains the system's defense against 51% attacks, where one exploits their hashrate to double-spend.  It doesn't have to do with altering the protocol rules of other clients.  That's impossible without their consent. 

[legiteum]

Therefore there would be no way of telling what is a "good" node and a "bad" node. They are all just nodes, and it somebody takes over 51% of them, they win.

Nope, a node that imposes a cap of 21 trillion isn't considered a 'good' node, regardless of the amount of hashrate they possess.  

"Considered" by what??

You keep inventing a central authority out of thin air.

You continue to reference a central authority that is going to "disagree" with bad nodes that does. not. exist.

I am NOT referring to any central authority.  It's the nodes within the current network that will refuse connections from nodes using different protocols.  What's hard to understand about that?

Obviously any sort of "bad" node would use the same exact protocol. Do you think an attacker would include a header that said, "hey, I'm a bad actor" on every packet?

How do you suppose Bitcoin's current nodes got there in the first place? Did they ask permission of that central authority you keep saying exists somewhere?

They connect because they adhere to the same protocol.  If one of them makes even a minor alteration to the protocol within its client, it no longer remains part of their network.  

Yep, and any network of bad actors would use the same protocol. Obviously.

Maybe I should have made that clear in the beginning here but I assumed that was obvious.

Lmao, they do.  It's called consensus:  https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Consensus.  

Yep, and consensus is a majority vote, and in the context of Bitcoin nodes, that is a major vote of hashrate. There are no people involved in this consensus.

"The system is secure as long as honest nodes collectively control more CPU power than any cooperating group of attacker nodes."

This has nothing to do with protocol rules.  If you actually read satoshi, it explains the system's defense against 51% attacks, where one exploits their hashrate to double-spend.  It doesn't have to do with altering the protocol rules of other clients.  That's impossible without their consent.  

Yes, the 49% can object all it wants to the actions of the 51%. But that doesn't matter. The majority wins. That's what consensus means.

The scheme Satoshi came up with is to ask the network and get it to effectively vote, using their hashrate, against the "bad" actors. But the "bad actors" are only defined by what the majority thinks is "bad". If the 51% says the 49% is "bad", then the 49% is bad. End of story.

[Medusah]

"Considered" by what??

By every node that runs the original Bitcoin rules. 

Obviously any sort of "bad" node would use the same exact protocol. Do you think an attacker would include a header that said, "hey, I'm a bad actor" on every packet?

Non-Chinese nodes will reject transactions from Chinese nodes if they violate the rules, effectively resulting in the same outcome as being blocked for being considered 'bad'. 

Yep, and consensus is a majority vote, and in the context of Bitcoin nodes, that is a major vote of hashrate. There are no people involved in this consensus.

You're mistaken.  Take another look at the pages I referred to earlier, you've clearly missed them.  The majority vote doesn't pertain to protocol rules but to the order of transactions.  If it were otherwise, miners could arbitrarily inflate their rewards, which isn't the case.  Ever wondered why this doesn't occur?

The scheme Satoshi came up with is to ask the network and get it to effectively vote, using their hashrate, against the "bad" actors. But the "bad actors" are only defined by what the majority thinks is "bad". If the 51% says the 49% is "bad", then the 49% is bad. End of story.

If the group controlling 51% of the hashrate changes the protocol rules within their nodes, they effectively detach from the network of the remaining 49%.  The 49% then becomes the new 100% of their existent network.   

[legiteum]

"Considered" by what??

By every node that runs the original Bitcoin rules. 

The attackers nodes are going to "run the original Bitcoin rules" as far as everybody is concerned. There would be no way, pragmatically in real time, to tell the difference between a "good" node and an "evil" node.

Obviously any sort of "bad" node would use the same exact protocol. Do you think an attacker would include a header that said, "hey, I'm a bad actor" on every packet?

Non-Chinese nodes will reject transactions from Chinese nodes if they violate the rules, effectively resulting in the same outcome as being blocked for being considered 'bad'. 

Again, how on earth would you know if the sever is "Chinese"? The IP address? That's not reliable at all.

And guess what: the Chinese nodes would reject the non-Chinese ones, which would result in a dispute, wherein the majority consensus prevails. In other words, it would be the non-Chinese servers who would be considered the attackers, and the Chinese ones considered the defenders of the network.

Yep, and consensus is a majority vote, and in the context of Bitcoin nodes, that is a major vote of hashrate. There are no people involved in this consensus.

You're mistaken.  Take another look at the pages I referred to earlier, you've clearly missed them.  The majority vote doesn't pertain to protocol rules but to the order of transactions.  If it were otherwise, miners could arbitrarily inflate their rewards, which isn't the case.  Ever wondered why this doesn't occur?

If the majority of the miners did this, then... their rewards would be inflated and that would be the new law of the land. (Moreover, I would posit that

For the umpteenth time here: THERE IS NO CENTRAL AUTHORITY.

You keep inventing one here out of thin air. But there isn't one, and because of that, the only thing you are left with is majority rule, which necessarily must be enforced lest the network be completely useless since everybody could otherwise simply choose their own authority.

The scheme Satoshi came up with is to ask the network and get it to effectively vote, using their hashrate, against the "bad" actors. But the "bad actors" are only defined by what the majority thinks is "bad". If the 51% says the 49% is "bad", then the 49% is bad. End of story.

If the group controlling 51% of the hashrate changes the protocol rules within their nodes, they effectively detach from the network of the remaining 49%.  The 49% then becomes the new 100% of their existent network.   

Correct, but the 49% would be the irrelevant ones, not the 51%. Control of Bitcoin would automatically revert to the 51%.

You seem to be stuck on two false notions:

1. That there exists a central authority controlling Bitcoin. There isn't one.

2. That you could pragmatically tell the difference between a "good" node and an "evil" node in real time. You can't.

Individual human outsiders could identify could, after the fact, identify nodes that were doing the wrong things, and they could, for instance, complain about it here on bitcointalk.org. But they could not affect the real-time operation of the network, which is governed by an algorithm, not a central authority, not "scientists", not "concerned citizens", not "smart people", etc. etc. It's just an algorithm, and it's proof-of-work.

[Medusah]

The attackers nodes are going to "run the original Bitcoin rules" as far as everybody is concerned.

A node that imposes a 21 trillion coin cap is not running based on the original Bitcoin rules. 

Again, how on earth would you know if the sever is "Chinese"?

Based on the rules it enforces, just like how a Bitcoin node and a Bitcoin Cash node recognize they're operating on different protocols, even without explicit IP ports and flags, they would eventually blacklist each other.  This occurs when they send each other transactions that violate the rules specific to each network. 

If the majority of the miners did this, then... their rewards would be inflated and that would be the new law of the land.

So, you CANNOT explain why miners aren't tampering with the consensus rules to increase their rewards, despite the fact that they have the capability to do so.  Why would they invest billions of dollars in energy, when they could inflate their rewards at will? 

You keep inventing one [central authority] here out of thin air.

It's you who creates the notion of a central authority that compels users to adhere to a specific set of rules.  I'm explaining the reality.  People have the freedom to join or leave any network they choose, and the majority of hashrate cannot hinder this.  Bitcoin Cash serves as a prime example.  If things operated as you imagine, Bitcoin Cash wouldn't exist because there wasn't a 'majority rule' that led to its creation. 

[legiteum]

The attackers nodes are going to "run the original Bitcoin rules" as far as everybody is concerned.

A node that imposes a 21 trillion coin cap is not running based on the original Bitcoin rules. 

The rules according to whom? You? Me? Sure. The actual algorithm that the Bitcoin network uses? Not so much.

Again, how on earth would you know if the sever is "Chinese"?

Based on the rules it enforces, just like how a Bitcoin node and a Bitcoin Cash node recognize they're operating on different protocols, even without explicit IP ports and flags, they would eventually blacklist each other.  This occurs when they send each other transactions that violate the rules specific to each network. 

If the majority of the miners did this, then... their rewards would be inflated and that would be the new law of the land.

So, you CANNOT explain why miners aren't tampering with the consensus rules to increase their rewards, despite the fact that they have the capability to do so.  Why would they invest billions of dollars in energy, when they could inflate their rewards at will? 

I did explain, and the answer is simple: if 51% of miners agreed to the price increase, then that would be the price.

You simply cannot get off this idea that there's a central authority controlling Bitcoin.

You keep inventing one [central authority] here out of thin air.
 

It's you who creates the notion of a central authority that compels users to adhere to a specific set of rules.  I'm explaining the reality.  People have the freedom to join or leave any network they choose, and the majority of hashrate cannot hinder this.  Bitcoin Cash serves as a prime example.  If things operated as you imagine, Bitcoin Cash wouldn't exist because there wasn't a 'majority rule' that led to its creation. 

Yes, people have the freedom to either hold Bitcoin or not hold Bitcoin. They, individually, do not have the ability to decide what servers are "good" and what servers are "evil". That is up to a consensus also known as a majority vote of hashrate.

Bitcoin cash is not Bitcoin and never was Bitcoin. Satoshi's Bitcoin blocks were not affected by Bitcoin cash, nor were anybody else's. The Bitcoin network--51% of it--ensured that Bitcoin stayed Bitcoin. If the majority of miners decided that Bitcoin cash was the primary system and the "old" Bitcoin was the fork, then that would be the world we're now living in. But that didn't happen.

[Medusah]

The rules according to whom? You? Me? Sure. The actual algorithm that the Bitcoin network uses? Not so much.

The algorithm that the Bitcoin network uses was written by satoshi and remains unaltered.  Me and you cannot modify it, while remaining in the network.  While we have the freedom to alter it, such actions would promptly lead to their expulsion from the network, effectively creating another altcoin. 

I did explain, and the answer is simple: if 51% of miners agreed to the price increase, then that would be the price.

This doesn't answer why they aren't doing it. 

You simply cannot get off this idea that there's a central authority controlling Bitcoin.

I have NOWHERE stated the existence of a central authority that dictates rules.  My argument supports the absence of such authority, it's just you who doesn't get it.  People are free to write and employ software of their preference.  Regardless of the amount of hashrate voting for a consensus rule, it doesn't change reality.  If 51% of the hashrate favors a significant change, such as modifying the 21 million rule, it merely results in the entity no longer being part of the Bitcoin network.  This isn't an imposition by an authority; it's the organic consequence of decentralized nodes ceasing to interact among themselves. 

Bitcoin cash is not Bitcoin and never was Bitcoin. Satoshi's Bitcoin blocks were not affected by Bitcoin cash, nor were anybody else's. The Bitcoin network--51% of it--ensured that Bitcoin stayed Bitcoin. If the majority of miners decided that Bitcoin cash was the primary system and the "old" Bitcoin was the fork, then that would be the world we're now living in. But that didn't happen.

If the majority of miners had shifted to Bitcoin Cash, then Bitcoin Cash would have become the prevailing norm.  However, this analogy differs because Bitcoin Cash solely rised the block size, a measure that had been under consideration since 2010 but was never enacted due to disagreements among developers.

Your argument presents a completely different scenario.  If Chinese nodes altered the 21 million rule to 21 trillion, opposition would arise from people like you and me, regardless of the hashrate.  It would inevitably collapse on its own, as users would refuse to adopt it. 

[NotATether]

For further discussion, here's an old article talking about this possibility:

https://www.investopedia.com/news/bitcoin-wont-win-worldwide-adoption-because-china-controls-it-ripple-ceo/

Obviously the hashrate for China has changed, but my thesis here is that it definitely could happen...

More FUD from the Ripple CEO... or should I say the new Ripple CEO. God what is wrong with those people? If they think that their shitcoin is better than Bitcoin then why don't they try making everyone use it?


The short answer is that if an entity ever came close to controlling over 50% of the hash rate, the miners would disconnect from their pool and join another. Unless it is a pool-less miner like Foundry. How do they have money to buy all those miners anyway? Venture capitalists?

[legiteum]

The rules according to whom? You? Me? Sure. The actual algorithm that the Bitcoin network uses? Not so much.

The algorithm that the Bitcoin network uses was written by satoshi and remains unaltered.  Me and you cannot modify it, while remaining in the network.  While we have the freedom to alter it, such actions would promptly lead to their expulsion from the network, effectively creating another altcoin. 

Huh? You can alter whatever code you want to alter. There's nothing physically preventing you.

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

I did explain, and the answer is simple: if 51% of miners agreed to the price increase, then that would be the price.

This doesn't answer why they aren't doing it. 

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.

You simply cannot get off this idea that there's a central authority controlling Bitcoin.

I have NOWHERE stated the existence of a central authority that dictates rules.  My argument supports the absence of such authority, it's just you who doesn't get it.  People are free to write and employ software of their preference. 

If everybody on the network could simply use whatever authority they wanted, individually, then the network wouldn't work since everybody would use nodes that increase the value of their blocks for instance. The algorithm--the proof-of-work algorithm enforces a majority vote among nodes in the context of a dispute.

If 51% of the hashrate favors a significant change, such as modifying the 21 million rule, it merely results in the entity no longer being part of the Bitcoin network.  This isn't an imposition by an authority; it's the organic consequence of decentralized nodes ceasing to interact among themselves. 

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.

Your argument presents a completely different scenario.  If Chinese nodes altered the 21 million rule to 21 trillion, opposition would arise from people like you and me, regardless of the hashrate.  It would inevitably collapse on its own, as users would refuse to adopt it. 

That's not what this scenario imagines. I very much doubt the Chinese or some other major attacker like that would increase the number of blocks, but rather they would do other things advantageous to themselves e.g. seizing Satoshi's blocks or perhaps simply holding the whole network hostage for geopolitical purposes.

[Medusah]

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. 

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!   

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?