BTC endgame = Mega Miner controlling everything, BTC is not "trustless"

[The00Dustin]

Yeah...  Let's pretend I believe that you really believe this needs fixed by changing the protocol...

Nevermind that the protocol adjusts difficulty based on the amount of time it took to submit a specific number of blocks to the active chain.

Nevermind the fact that each block was generated by one device and accepted by all the others with no consideration for what the human-conceived hashrate is (a calculation based on the time it took to generate already gathered results with no way to factor out luck).

Nevermind the fact that all valid blocks are valid because their hashes say so.

Nevermind the fact that a malicious pool could mostly hide the 50+% human-conceived hashrate by submitting blocks from multiple IPs and showing different users different pool data based on which IP their miner submits through.

Nevermind the fact that the potentially malicious pool in question is technically buying computing power from users and doesn't need to show them any information regarding it's mining even though that would mean it could actually submit blocks from multiple IPs that appear to be slow solo miners while still pulling off the exact same attack.

Nevermind the fact that a malicious third party with enough resources could generate enough hashing power to effectively double the hashrate and never submit anything to the network until they wanted to double spend.

Let's set up a central authority that can decree that a given pool has too much power and uses specific IP addresses.  Let's then set up all of the nodes to reject any block from those addresses that would make the blocks submitted from them equal to more than half of the blocks accepted in the last 6 blocks.  That way 6 confirmations is secure because the central authority says it is.  That's way better than having 6 blocks be secure because the math says it is.

Also, as an added benefit, the central authority can take bribes to not call out specific pools and specific IP addresses, and that bribe money can be used to advertise how much better the central authority is than the rules of mathematics.  Then we'll be more secure because the central authority says so, right?

-----------------------------------------------------

OR, you could come up with a workable solution, search the forums to see how many times it has already been posted and shot down for all the flaws it contains, and post it if your search doesn't turn up such results so it can treated as what it is (and based on the number of smart people who have already wrestled with this in the past several years, that would most likely not be a decentralized workable solution).

Then you could rinse and repeat.

This forum is covered with junk, but since you like reading and learning so much: here's a conversation about why a suggested solution wouldn't work.  Oh, and look at that, it was being discussed 10 months before you even had a forum account, and it was started by someone who had then had a forum account for about as long as you have.  Maybe that's because showing up and wanting to fix something simply because "code can fix anything" doesn't magically fix it.

-----------------------------------------------------

Quite frankly, your first post had a valid point that a better algorithm could theoretically exist.  Beyond that, even though you don't care what I think, I think everyone who has tried to explain the problems with "requiring more hashrate to perform the attack" already knows that you're trolling based on your responses.  Sorry about trolling a troll, I should have known I'd be bested since I normally contribute instead of trolling.

[iluvpie60]

Yeah...  Let's pretend I believe that you really believe this needs fixed by changing the protocol...

Nevermind that the protocol adjusts difficulty based on the amount of time it took to submit a specific number of blocks to the active chain.

Nevermind the fact that each block was generated by one device and accepted by all the others with no consideration for what the human-conceived hashrate is (a calculation based on the time it took to generate already gathered results with no way to factor out luck).

Nevermind the fact that all valid blocks are valid because their hashes say so.

Nevermind the fact that a malicious pool could mostly hide the 50+% human-conceived hashrate by submitting blocks from multiple IPs and showing different users different pool data based on which IP their miner submits through.

Nevermind the fact that the potentially malicious pool in question is technically buying computing power from users and doesn't need to show them any information regarding it's mining even though that would mean it could actually submit blocks from multiple IPs that appear to be slow solo miners while still pulling off the exact same attack.

Nevermind the fact that a malicious third party with enough resources could generate enough hashing power to effectively double the hashrate and never submit anything to the network until they wanted to double spend.

Let's set up a central authority that can decree that a given pool has too much power and uses specific IP addresses.  Let's then set up all of the nodes to reject any block from those addresses that would make the blocks submitted from them equal to more than half of the blocks accepted in the last 6 blocks.  That way 6 confirmations is secure because the central authority says it is.  That's way better than having 6 blocks be secure because the math says it is.

Also, as an added benefit, the central authority can take bribes to not call out specific pools and specific IP addresses, and that bribe money can be used to advertise how much better the central authority is than the rules of mathematics.  Then we'll be more secure because the central authority says so, right?

-----------------------------------------------------

OR, you could come up with a workable solution, search the forums to see how many times it has already been posted and shot down for all the flaws it contains, and post it if your search doesn't turn up such results so it can treated as what it is (and based on the number of smart people who have already wrestled with this in the past several years, that would most likely not be a decentralized workable solution).

Then you could rinse and repeat.

This forum is covered with junk, but since you like reading and learning so much: here's a conversation about why a suggested solution wouldn't work.  Oh, and look at that, it was being discussed 10 months before you even had a forum account, and it was started by someone who had then had a forum account for about as long as you have.  Maybe that's because showing up and wanting to fix something simply because "code can fix anything" doesn't magically fix it.

-----------------------------------------------------

Quite frankly, your first post had a valid point that a better algorithm could theoretically exist.  Beyond that, even though you don't care what I think, I think everyone who has tried to explain the problems with "requiring more hashrate to perform the attack" already knows that you're trolling based on your responses.  Sorry about trolling a troll, I should have known I'd be bested since I normally contribute instead of trolling.

Basically all you are typing is that YOU ARE RIGHT and that I AM WRONG. So why are you even posting in "Bitcoin Discussion" section of this forum? All you are trying to do is NOT DISCUSS anything, which isn't helpful. I can point out all the flaws in everything you say, but that doesn't HELP BITCOIN GET BETTER. Sorry I am doing that, and apparently that bothers you, I could care less about your feelings though baby boy.

It might not be easy to write code so complex to account for so many variables and what the future holds, but Bitcoins dev/devs certainly put forth a very good effort did just that(but according to your "logic" it is impossible). By the logic of everything you are typing here you are saying there will never be something better than Bitcoin or an update to the code that can make it more fair and more trustworthy. That is your fallacy and YOUR problem.

Now whether or not the update to the code fixes more problems than it causes is the subject of debate. A portion of code could be written to judge Mining Pools by their trustworthiness(surprised this hasn't happened yet), then algorithms and other formulas can easily derive how much percent of trust it should have. Just because you have hashing power doesn't mean you are trustworthy. It does mean that you have a vested interest in BTC, or maybe it means you want to destroy it, or maybe it means X number of things, but you cannot "trust" the intentions of miners because Hashing Power != Trustworthiness

Therefore we can logically conclude the "highest hashing power" current model is going to be outdated at some point, E.G. when the next "GOX" happens but in the mining world. Do we really have to all sit around with our thumbs parked up our asses and wait for a Miner to do something really bad? Satoshi was very forward thinking and couldn't account for everything(who can it is really hard to do that), so how about we think forward? I am, why do you refuse to?

[The00Dustin]

Basically all you are typing is that YOU ARE RIGHT and that I AM WRONG. So why are you even posting in "Bitcoin Discussion" section of this forum? All you are trying to do is NOT DISCUSS anything, which isn't helpful. I can point out all the flaws in everything you say, but that doesn't HELP BITCOIN GET BETTER. Sorry I am doing that, and apparently that bothers you, I could care less about your feelings though baby boy.

Wow!  Name calling!  Aren't you advanced...

<snip>
Quite frankly, your first post had a valid point that a better algorithm could theoretically exist.
<snip>

It might not be easy to write code so complex to account for so many variables and what the future holds, but Bitcoins dev/devs certainly put forth a very good effort did just that(but according to your "logic" it is impossible). By the logic of everything you are typing here you are saying there will never be something better than Bitcoin or an update to the code that can make it more fair and more trustworthy. That is your fallacy and YOUR problem.

Nice to see that you read my post before responding...

Therefore we can logically conclude the "highest hashing power" current model is going to be outdated at some point, E.G. when the next "GOX" happens but in the mining world. Do we really have to all sit around with our thumbs parked up our asses and wait for a Miner to do something really bad? Satoshi was very forward thinking and couldn't account for everything(who can it is really hard to do that), so how about we think forward? I am, why do you refuse to?

Why is it impossible for you to see that you can only see the results of mining power and luck?

How can you not understand that when you refer to hashrate, what you are really referring to is already solved blocks on the chain.

How can you not understand that this "hashrate" has already been used?

How can you not understand that you wouldn't see any "hashrate" being used for a 51% attack until after the attack was mounted?

Why do you think there is a "highest hashing power" model?  The system was designed for individual mining, and pools were invented later.  Human greed is what drives people to give hashpower to someone even when that power could turn that someone into their attacker, and you can't fix that with code.  If people understood what their hashpower was for and how variance works, they could switch to any number of other pools and make the same amount of money.  Unfortunately, people don't understand, so they flock to the biggest pool, just like they flock to Wal-Mart or NewEgg thinking they are getting the best prices.  Changing the protocol "because humans" is like changing umbrellas "because drought".

The whole point of every single person detracting your suggestions regarding "hashrate" is that you can't fix/prevent a 51% attack based on hashrate.  If you want to fix/prevent a 51% attack, you need to start from a different angle.  In my post that you so clearly read, I not only stated that you should try to come up with other solutions, but even linked to asother suggested solution with discussion about why it won't work.

Moreover, even if you could set up "rules" to prevent entities from having too much "hashrate," you couldn't tell what submitters were what entities if they wanted to randomly move about, and you couldn't prevent entities from teaming up to form an attack.  As such, you couldn't prevent a single entity with 50%+ power from acting as if it were several different entities in order to do the same.

As if all that weren't enough, even if you could solve all of the above, it wouldn't be fair to a legitimate entity that had a majority of the power, and fairness in mining is just as important as fungibility in coins.  Arguing that doing anything based on the hashrate of a block submitter is acceptable is no different than arguing that blocking the FBI coins would be acceptable.  Neither of those arguments reflect the premise / core values of bitcoin, and if implemented, either could easily spell doom for the project.

Alternatively, as you mention the protocol could be changed, but also acknowledge that it may have taken a lot of effort to create and implement the original protocol, search the forums with these words:
hard fork alt coin
You will see all manner of "I want bitcoin to do this/that" threads with arguments about why the protocol can 't be changed.  All of those arguments basically say the same thing, which is something to this effect:
"You can't get consensus and the old protocol will live on, so the new protocol won't be bitcoin, it will be an altcoin."
Given that, yes - BTC could fail because of the 51% attack, yes - something else could take its place, yes - it could start from the existing bitcoin blockchain right at the block where the detrimental 51% attack occurred (or anytime before or after that point), but no - bitcoin would not be "fixed" by that action.

However, as I still think you're trolling, and also find that I'm out of troll food, I won't be posting in this thread again until/unless I feel that you have done something besides what I have witnessed thus far:
*attempt to spread fud
*argue that we should try to do something based on "hashrate" (which isn't logical since we're apparently still talking about logic)
*name-call
*suggest we should "change the protocol"
*continue to suggest we should "change the code" without any constructive suggestion as to how

[phillipsjk]

Just because you have hashing power doesn't mean you are trustworthy. It does mean that you have a vested interest in BTC, or maybe it means you want to destroy it, or maybe it means X number of things, but you cannot "trust" the intentions of miners because Hashing Power != Trustworthiness

The answer is simple:  the protocol assumes that people are generally "good" (trustworthy). As long as bad actors control less than about 25% of the hash-power, everything is working as intended. Obviously, one large pool can invalidate that assumption.

On the troll question, I don't think you are deliberately trolling. I have been accused of trolling myself in the past: I looked it up, and believe I came accross this page:

Try not to follow-up to your own troll. The troll itself quickly becomes forgotten in the chaos and if you just sit back you can avoid being blamed for causing it.

Remember, if you do follow up you are talking to an idiot. Treat them with the ill-respect they deserve.

You should also learn to recognise follow-ups from your fellow trollers. Sometimes an average troll can be elevated into majestic proportions when several trollers spontaneously join forces via the medium of the follow up troll.

In other words, your post/response ratio is way too high

When I deliberately try to troll (as I have in the past week), I am usually too subtle. If anybody noticed, they did not comment yet.

[StevenS]

If people understood what their hashpower was for and how variance works, they could switch to any number of other pools and make the same amount of money.  Unfortunately, people don't understand, so they flock to the biggest pool, just like they flock to Wal-Mart or NewEgg thinking they are getting the best prices.

I don't usually quote a post without adding something, but I think what you said (above) may have gotten lost in your large post.

Until you said it, I didn't know why one pool had so much power, but the Wal-Mart analogy make perfect sense. We should be working on getting this message out to miners that it's easy and no less profitable to switch to a smaller pool, and will help Bitcoin.

[iluvpie60]

Basically all you are typing is that YOU ARE RIGHT and that I AM WRONG. So why are you even posting in "Bitcoin Discussion" section of this forum? All you are trying to do is NOT DISCUSS anything, which isn't helpful. I can point out all the flaws in everything you say, but that doesn't HELP BITCOIN GET BETTER. Sorry I am doing that, and apparently that bothers you, I could care less about your feelings though baby boy.

Wow!  Name calling!  Aren't you advanced...

<snip>
Quite frankly, your first post had a valid point that a better algorithm could theoretically exist.
<snip>

It might not be easy to write code so complex to account for so many variables and what the future holds, but Bitcoins dev/devs certainly put forth a very good effort did just that(but according to your "logic" it is impossible). By the logic of everything you are typing here you are saying there will never be something better than Bitcoin or an update to the code that can make it more fair and more trustworthy. That is your fallacy and YOUR problem.

Nice to see that you read my post before responding...

Therefore we can logically conclude the "highest hashing power" current model is going to be outdated at some point, E.G. when the next "GOX" happens but in the mining world. Do we really have to all sit around with our thumbs parked up our asses and wait for a Miner to do something really bad? Satoshi was very forward thinking and couldn't account for everything(who can it is really hard to do that), so how about we think forward? I am, why do you refuse to?

Why is it impossible for you to see that you can only see the results of mining power and luck?

How can you not understand that when you refer to hashrate, what you are really referring to is already solved blocks on the chain.

How can you not understand that this "hashrate" has already been used?

How can you not understand that you wouldn't see any "hashrate" being used for a 51% attack until after the attack was mounted?

Why do you think there is a "highest hashing power" model?  The system was designed for individual mining, and pools were invented later.  Human greed is what drives people to give hashpower to someone even when that power could turn that someone into their attacker, and you can't fix that with code.  If people understood what their hashpower was for and how variance works, they could switch to any number of other pools and make the same amount of money.  Unfortunately, people don't understand, so they flock to the biggest pool, just like they flock to Wal-Mart or NewEgg thinking they are getting the best prices.  Changing the protocol "because humans" is like changing umbrellas "because drought".

The whole point of every single person detracting your suggestions regarding "hashrate" is that you can't fix/prevent a 51% attack based on hashrate.  If you want to fix/prevent a 51% attack, you need to start from a different angle.  In my post that you so clearly read, I not only stated that you should try to come up with other solutions, but even linked to asother suggested solution with discussion about why it won't work.

Moreover, even if you could set up "rules" to prevent entities from having too much "hashrate," you couldn't tell what submitters were what entities if they wanted to randomly move about, and you couldn't prevent entities from teaming up to form an attack.  As such, you couldn't prevent a single entity with 50%+ power from acting as if it were several different entities in order to do the same.

As if all that weren't enough, even if you could solve all of the above, it wouldn't be fair to a legitimate entity that had a majority of the power, and fairness in mining is just as important as fungibility in coins.  Arguing that doing anything based on the hashrate of a block submitter is acceptable is no different than arguing that blocking the FBI coins would be acceptable.  Neither of those arguments reflect the premise / core values of bitcoin, and if implemented, either could easily spell doom for the project.

Alternatively, as you mention the protocol could be changed, but also acknowledge that it may have taken a lot of effort to create and implement the original protocol, search the forums with these words:
hard fork alt coin
You will see all manner of "I want bitcoin to do this/that" threads with arguments about why the protocol can 't be changed.  All of those arguments basically say the same thing, which is something to this effect:
"You can't get consensus and the old protocol will live on, so the new protocol won't be bitcoin, it will be an altcoin."
Given that, yes - BTC could fail because of the 51% attack, yes - something else could take its place, yes - it could start from the existing bitcoin blockchain right at the block where the detrimental 51% attack occurred (or anytime before or after that point), but no - bitcoin would not be "fixed" by that action.

However, as I still think you're trolling, and also find that I'm out of troll food, I won't be posting in this thread again until/unless I feel that you have done something besides what I have witnessed thus far:
*attempt to spread fud
*argue that we should try to do something based on "hashrate" (which isn't logical since we're apparently still talking about logic)
*name-call
*suggest we should "change the protocol"
*continue to suggest we should "change the code" without any constructive suggestion as to how

There are plenty of ways something can be quantified.

In logic and things related to it, quantification is essentially the binding of a variable that can range over a domain of discourse. The variable would then become bound by an operator  which is the quantifier. So to sit here and claim Hashrate cannot be quantified, is to admit you don't know the definition of the word.

Please stop trolling this thread, MODs who read this please delete all of his posts as they serve no purpose.

[iluvpie60]

If people understood what their hashpower was for and how variance works, they could switch to any number of other pools and make the same amount of money.  Unfortunately, people don't understand, so they flock to the biggest pool, just like they flock to Wal-Mart or NewEgg thinking they are getting the best prices.

I don't usually quote a post without adding something, but I think what you said (above) may have gotten lost in your large post.

Until you said it, I didn't know why one pool had so much power, but the Wal-Mart analogy make perfect sense. We should be working on getting this message out to miners that it's easy and no less profitable to switch to a smaller pool, and will help Bitcoin.

While his analogy might make sense, his logic on why people go there is flawed. They go there for the benefits, the benefit IS that they get more blocks solved on average.

[ThomasCrowne]

50 petahash added per month?!?!  Are you freaking kidding me?

[iluvpie60]

Just because you have hashing power doesn't mean you are trustworthy. It does mean that you have a vested interest in BTC, or maybe it means you want to destroy it, or maybe it means X number of things, but you cannot "trust" the intentions of miners because Hashing Power != Trustworthiness

The answer is simple:  the protocol assumes that people are generally "good" (trustworthy). As long as bad actors control less than about 25% of the hash-power, everything is working as intended. Obviously, one large pool can invalidate that assumption.

On the troll question, I don't think you are deliberately trolling. I have been accused of trolling myself in the past: I looked it up, and believe I came accross this page:

Try not to follow-up to your own troll. The troll itself quickly becomes forgotten in the chaos and if you just sit back you can avoid being blamed for causing it.

Remember, if you do follow up you are talking to an idiot. Treat them with the ill-respect they deserve.

You should also learn to recognise follow-ups from your fellow trollers. Sometimes an average troll can be elevated into majestic proportions when several trollers spontaneously join forces via the medium of the follow up troll.

In other words, your post/response ratio is way too high

When I deliberately try to troll (as I have in the past week), I am usually too subtle. If anybody noticed, they did not comment yet.

If people consider me a troll for being mean/annoying to them, it is only because they were mean/annoying/whatever to me first. You are ok honestly. This other guy on the other hand gets back what he dishes out. They might think they are smart, but all I see the other guy spewing is CONJECTURE. I have when people conject, makes me sad.

I suppose I respond to my post too much idk. I don't usually like to comment on other posts very much, I usually just read them.

[farlack]

If you think GHash.io is big, wait til you see IBM, VISA, China, Iceland, etc mining.

Actually that would be good if they all started mining. They would bring the 51% down to 10% each.

[iluvpie60]

If you think GHash.io is big, wait til you see IBM, VISA, China, Iceland, etc mining.

Actually that would be good if they all started mining. They would bring the 51% down to 10% each.

It would be an interesting exercise. What really is there to protect a Miner from malicious Miners? If Visa or whoever waged a war on BTC and legit took it down and screwed everything up, there isn't really any law that they violated is there? I am not sure if there is or not but it doesn't sound like there is yet anyway.

[StevenS]

If Visa or whoever waged a war on BTC and legit took it down and screwed everything up, there isn't really any law that they violated is there? I am not sure if there is or not but it doesn't sound like there is yet anyway.

IIUC, the "51% attack" is a double-spend attack. That is, if the attack is successful, it allows the attacker to replace the last few blocks with his own new blocks, which re-spend the coins that already appeared as inputs in a transaction in a block that will now be orphaned.

In order to profit from such an attack, the coins spent in the orphaned block must be exchanged for something (such as fiat, or a balance in an exchange that is later withdrawn). This would clearly be fraud, and there are already laws against that.

The "51% attack" cannot "screw everything up", only those transactions that are double-spent.

Of course there is the secondary effect of public relations for Bitcoin, which admittedly could be "screwed up."

[cbeast]

If Visa or whoever waged a war on BTC and legit took it down and screwed everything up, there isn't really any law that they violated is there? I am not sure if there is or not but it doesn't sound like there is yet anyway.

IIUC, the "51% attack" is a double-spend attack. That is, if the attack is successful, it allows the attacker to replace the last few blocks with his own new blocks, which re-spend the coins that already appeared as inputs in a transaction in a block that will now be orphaned.

In order to profit from such an attack, the coins spent in the orphaned block must be exchanged for something (such as fiat, or a balance in an exchange that is later withdrawn). This would clearly be fraud, and there are already laws against that.

The "51% attack" cannot "screw everything up", only those transactions that are double-spent.

Of course there is the secondary effect of public relations for Bitcoin, which admittedly could be "screwed up."

That's a good point. It just means that Bitcoin is not 100% fraud proof. It just costs millions of dollars worth of equipment and energy to perpetrate something that can still be traced by shipping records, electric bills, and invoices. It's a good thing that Bitcoin is Proof of Work, because there are real world ways to keep it honest.

[logger]

http://hackingdistributed.com/2014/06/16/how-a-mining-monopoly-can-attack-bitcoin/ <-cred and props to these guys for writing this.

Hah, professors and postdocs at Cornell! How would they know anything about how Bitcoin works? It's all FUD! Don't they know that Bitcoin is built on maths by the great Satoshi?