The Bitcoin Dilemma: Can the Internet be shutdown?

[Nicotinefreek]

If the internet is shutdown there are more fundamental problems than the utility of bitcoin.

marked

I agree with marked.
If the internet is shut down, BTC would not be one of the top concerns for many people at all. This will not happen for obvious reasons. I wouldn't worry.

-Reece

Watch the south park episode where the internet is gone It's Just Gone and it will tell you everything you need to know about this subject lol

[1714809500]

1714809500

[1714809500]

1714809500

[1714809500]

1714809500

[1714809500]

1714809500

[1714809500]

1714809500

[1714809500]

1714809500

[SgtSpike]

In other news...

Iran expected to permanently cut off Internet by August

[MoonShadow]

In other news...

Iran expected to permanently cut off Internet by August

This would be a good opprotunity to see if bitcoin routes around the block.  Do we have any forum members from Iran?  Considering that access to this forum may be blocked later, I wonder if we could set up a means to test bitcoin penetration into Iran after the block.  Say, perhaps, get the bitcoin address of a volunteer in Iran.  After the block, other volunteers could send small bitcoin amounts to this address, and if the user in Iran can see those payments, return them to the senders.  If one person sent a small amount each day, and the volunteer agreed to return those payments as quickly as reasonable, we could track the effectiveness of the block.

[JusticeForYou]

The Internet can't be shut down. However, it can be greatly slowed down. The electronic communication between computers is what is assumed to be the 'internet'. Anyone with the correct ham radio and software can have the internet, although don't expect to be watching youtube videos.  

But Bitcoin could still work over the airwaves via a mesh network internet. Ideally, NFC (Near Field Communications) could be employed within devices to further enhance the ability.

2-Meter Radio, I believe can be bought on sight without tested licensing.

[MoonShadow]

2-Meter Radio, I believe can be bought on sight without tested licensing.

Pretty  much any ham gear, but using it is going to get the feds on your tail, because hams aren't going to suffer you for long.  It's a fine emergency communications plan, however, and an attack on the commercial Internet infrastructure might just qualify.  In a true emergency, anyone has the right to transmit.  True emergencies mean that life or property is in immediate danger, not that you can't read your email.

To be honest, however; Marine VHF gear has been in use by unlicensed users for some time now.  As long as you are using it far enough from the ocean, and yield to primary users, that you don't tick anyone off, then no one calls the FCC and thus no one really cares. 

[JusticeForYou]

2 - Meter is the easiest to get into. The technology has vastly improved with trunked spread spectrum, etc...

Of course any serious user would upgrade and become licensed probably with a General License. Radio Modems have significantly improved throughput. You can always fallback on J3E (TEL), F1B (DSC/TLX), A1A (CW), etc...

Don't anyone get excited, equipment can range into the thousands and 10's of thousands of dollars.  There are relatively inexpensive ways to get started though. I believe the Novice License can be issued at the store for 2-meter (don't quote me, not sure). I had to do a pretty long course.


But as you bring it up...

Notice anything unique about this search:

https://www.google.com/#hl=en&sugexp=frgbld&gs_nf=1&gs_mss=hamcompu&pq=hamcomputers%20gpumax&cp=19&gs_id=2z&xhr=t&q=hamcomputers+gpumax&pf=p&sclient=psy-ab&oq=hamcomputers+gpumax&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&gs_l=&pbx=1&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.r_qf.,cf.osb&fp=69fd871f5b2bc427&biw=1279&bih=664&bs=1

[N12]

This thread smells like Atlas.

Funny you say that, my Atlas Detector immediately started peeping as well.

[MoonShadow]

Notice anything unique about this search:

https://www.google.com/#hl=en&sugexp=frgbld&gs_nf=1&gs_mss=hamcompu&pq=hamcomputers%20gpumax&cp=19&gs_id=2z&xhr=t&q=hamcomputers+gpumax&pf=p&sclient=psy-ab&oq=hamcomputers+gpumax&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&gs_l=&pbx=1&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.r_qf.,cf.osb&fp=69fd871f5b2bc427&biw=1279&bih=664&bs=1

Is it your's?

[MoonShadow]

http://pskmail.wikispaces.com/

If you have a ham license and a HF rig, You are never out of touch.

I wonder how difficult it would be to modify this server code to move bitcoin messages.

[btccomm]

Consider the attempt last year for the government of Egypt to block cross-border Internet traffic.   Sites like gmail, Youtube and CNN even were not accessible by those within Egypt.  But the traffic within the country was still functional.  Eventually the bitcoin client would find peers within the country (or helped a bit by manually specifying which peers to connect to) so all that needs to happen is for one of those nodes to connect to the rest of the internet for the blockchain to be kept current.  That could occur over dialup if nothing else.

There are other ways the Internet could survive if disruptions to massive subcomponents were to occur (e.g., if consumer access providers were to block all traffic, for instance).  Metro-wide networks built using mesh networking technologies with inter-city peering links could some day make reliance on the existing Internet infrastructure.  You wouldn't get Facebook but you could still route e-mail, transfer data files and transact using bitcoin.

Here's one approach for a quick-deploy emergency internet:
 - http://wiki.hacdc.org/index.php/Byzantium#Project_Goals

what if all major interchange points were shut down like http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MAE-East and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MAE-West  the result would be an overload of traffic on the rest of the system making the internet essentially worthless. Think cascading failure,  it would be like a denial of service on the network

[Kettenmonster]

YES It is possible! ... just successfully switched of my Internet!
Guess what, I had to reload it all! It´s really dangerous!

Imagine!

If politicians switch of their Internet, you will no longer know what they are ... uhm ... but still ... sounds scary!

[JusticeForYou]

Consider the attempt last year for the government of Egypt to block cross-border Internet traffic.   Sites like gmail, Youtube and CNN even were not accessible by those within Egypt.  But the traffic within the country was still functional.  Eventually the bitcoin client would find peers within the country (or helped a bit by manually specifying which peers to connect to) so all that needs to happen is for one of those nodes to connect to the rest of the internet for the blockchain to be kept current.  That could occur over dialup if nothing else.

There are other ways the Internet could survive if disruptions to massive subcomponents were to occur (e.g., if consumer access providers were to block all traffic, for instance).  Metro-wide networks built using mesh networking technologies with inter-city peering links could some day make reliance on the existing Internet infrastructure.  You wouldn't get Facebook but you could still route e-mail, transfer data files and transact using bitcoin.

Here's one approach for a quick-deploy emergency internet:
 - http://wiki.hacdc.org/index.php/Byzantium#Project_Goals

what if all major interchange points were shut down like http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MAE-East and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MAE-West  the result would be an overload of traffic on the rest of the system making the internet essentially worthless. Think cascading failure,  it would be like a denial of service on the network

Yes, you make a good point.

I would propose though that 'efficiency' shouldn't be the sole model for durability. Imagine someone ddos'ing FIDO Mail. It would be a futile exercise.

Decentralized meshed networks, might not be efficient, but they are durable. Also, by just slowing down the information a little, it deters attacks on a system.

Remember all those BBS's that would call each other once a day or so and pass on information? Hard to stop that especially when there are so many lines of transfer of information between them.

[btccomm]

Consider the attempt last year for the government of Egypt to block cross-border Internet traffic.   Sites like gmail, Youtube and CNN even were not accessible by those within Egypt.  But the traffic within the country was still functional.  Eventually the bitcoin client would find peers within the country (or helped a bit by manually specifying which peers to connect to) so all that needs to happen is for one of those nodes to connect to the rest of the internet for the blockchain to be kept current.  That could occur over dialup if nothing else.

There are other ways the Internet could survive if disruptions to massive subcomponents were to occur (e.g., if consumer access providers were to block all traffic, for instance).  Metro-wide networks built using mesh networking technologies with inter-city peering links could some day make reliance on the existing Internet infrastructure.  You wouldn't get Facebook but you could still route e-mail, transfer data files and transact using bitcoin.

Here's one approach for a quick-deploy emergency internet:
 - http://wiki.hacdc.org/index.php/Byzantium#Project_Goals

what if all major interchange points were shut down like http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MAE-East and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MAE-West  the result would be an overload of traffic on the rest of the system making the internet essentially worthless. Think cascading failure,  it would be like a denial of service on the network

Yes, you make a good point.

I would propose though that 'efficiency' shouldn't be the sole model for durability. Imagine someone ddos'ing FIDO Mail. It would be a futile exercise.

Decentralized meshed networks, might not be efficient, but they are durable. Also, by just slowing down the information a little, it deters attacks on a system.

Remember all those BBS's that would call each other once a day or so and pass on information? Hard to stop that especially when there are so many lines of transfer of information between them.

yeah i  was around in the BBS days,  and yes the internet is durable.  but going back to the functional level of the '90s  seems like a big cluster to me.  but it would better than nothing

[MoonShadow]

yeah i  was around in the BBS days,  and yes the internet is durable.  but going back to the functional level of the '90s  seems like a big cluster to me.  but it would better than nothing

Big cluster, yes.  But the root point of this thread is that Bitcoin would not be greatly affected by that.  Neither would email.  But Facebook, Viop and my Steam games would be completely useless.  Likely Twitter and the other high speed social networks, even if they deal in short fits of text.  Simply because they deal with so much text headed towards one single choke point.

Bitcoin does not have a choke point as long as the individual user can get any bandwidth.

Miners would be screwed, however, because any blocks they mine would take too long to propogate.

[finkleshnorts]

If miners are screwed then so is everbody

[JusticeForYou]

If miners are screwed then so is everbody

Beg to differ. Miners would not fail. Difficulty would fall due to lack of latency and profitability. Pools would become less important than solo mining. I don't think this is bad. The tendency is to mine at full capacity and bet the other guys. If everybody mines a little with reduced difficulty, it still works. PPS wouldn't be really effective but solo would do fine but it would be more of a lottery. Maybe you win, maybe you don't.

[SgtSpike]

If miners are screwed then so is everbody

Beg to differ. Miners would not fail. Difficulty would fall due to lack of latency and profitability. Pools would become less important than solo mining. I don't think this is bad. The tendency is to mine at full capacity and bet the other guys. If everybody mines a little with reduced difficulty, it still works. PPS wouldn't be really effective but solo would do fine but it would be more of a lottery. Maybe you win, maybe you don't.

If a new block takes more than 10 minutes to propagate across the ENTIRE Bitcoin network, then yes, everybody is screwed.  And I can't imagine a network of VHF radios being able to propagate transactions very quickly.

[JusticeForYou]

If miners are screwed then so is everbody

Beg to differ. Miners would not fail. Difficulty would fall due to lack of latency and profitability. Pools would become less important than solo mining. I don't think this is bad. The tendency is to mine at full capacity and bet the other guys. If everybody mines a little with reduced difficulty, it still works. PPS wouldn't be really effective but solo would do fine but it would be more of a lottery. Maybe you win, maybe you don't.

If a new block takes more than 10 minutes to propagate across the ENTIRE Bitcoin network, then yes, everybody is screwed.  And I can't imagine a network of VHF radios being able to propagate transactions very quickly.

Yes, a slow mesh network would take time if done like the old BBS communication system.

VHF, UHF, HF, etc... Well, that wouldn't take a lot of time at all. You realize voice, video, and text are currently being transmitted around the world at the speed of light. An NFC Mesh Network would be a little slower but still pretty damn fast.

[thezerg]

I think the real interesting question is what would happen in the case of a netsplit (used to be common in IRC) -- today one would probably be caused by a totalitarian regime implementing a countrywide firewall (google "great firewall of china").  First question is how well bitcoin could route around it? 

The second question comes from the observation that clearly after a few weeks passed we'd then have 2 independent perfectly consistent blockchains.  After a few weeks, months, or years, when the great firewall finally goes down, how does the bitcoin network rejoin?  In theory it would be possible to rejoin perfectly.  In practice, I think that anyone with a communications pathway (possibly even paper) could double-spend their coins on either side of the firewall, causing major chaos.

[SgtSpike]

I think the real interesting question is what would happen in the case of a netsplit (used to be common in IRC) -- today one would probably be caused by a totalitarian regime implementing a countrywide firewall (google "great firewall of china").  First question is how well bitcoin could route around it? 

The second question comes from the observation that clearly after a few weeks passed we'd then have 2 independent perfectly consistent blockchains.  After a few weeks, months, or years, when the great firewall finally goes down, how does the bitcoin network rejoin?  In theory it would be possible to rejoin perfectly.  In practice, I think that anyone with a communications pathway (possibly even paper) could double-spend their coins on either side of the firewall, causing major chaos.

I don't think it would be possible to rejoin the chains after such an incident.  Preferably, there would be some way to differentiate the two, and keep them separate.  Double-spends would stand, because there's nothing you could do about them.  Theoretically, if everyone double-spent on both chains, you'd then have twice the number of coins in circulation (42M instead of 21M).

I think the only way to rejoin them would be to orphan one of the chains, which obviously wouldn't be possible after such a long period.  All it would take is one bad transaction (i.e., one double spend) to ruin the whole chain and make them incompatible with each other.