5 ms·

Sure, I understand that. My problem is with this statement: >The whole consensus network of Bitcoin is based around burning so much energy/space/infrastructure

by josu 11y ago

Sure, I understand that. My problem is with this statement: >The whole consensus network of Bitcoin is based around burning so much energy/space/infrastructure on hashing that a single actor wouldn't be able to invest a bunch of money and take a controlling majority. I just don't think that's true. The only thing keeping one big player from taking over the network is scale. I really don't think that the "whole consensus network of Bitcoin is based around" what he says it is, since it's not necessary. Yes, there is a proof of stake, but it has nothing to do with "burning so much energy/space/infrastructure on hashing that a single actor wouldn't be able to invest a bunch of money and take a controlling majority". It's just a way to create the right incentives for people to want to mine.

jfoutz 11y ago
Perhaps your point is more subtle than i'm catching on to, but this is right out of the bitcoin paper abstract: "The longest chain not only serves as proof of the sequence of events witnessed, but proof that it came from the largest pool of CPU power. As long as a majority of CPU power is controlled by nodes that are not cooperating to attack the network, they'll generate the longest chain and outpace attackers." https://bitcoin.org/bitcoin.pdf https://bitcoin.org/bitcoin.pdf So, literally the group that burns the most energy/space/infrastructure is correct, as far as the system is concerned. if an attacker can burn more cpu, generate a longer chain, they win.
wlesieutre 11y ago
Maybe my wording is exaggerated. But the huge scale you'd need for a majority attack is the reason it's not viable, and the network is designed to encourage mining to drive that scale up. As the wiki points out, potential gains aren't total control: you get to reverse transactions but can't directly steal coins out of someone else's wallet. With a system of independent agents all trying to game the system to make money, it comes down to a cost/benefit analysis. If Bitcoin weren't designed to have the network scale that it does, the cost of making that attack could be cheap enough for it to be worth doing. But since the mining incentives are made to drive terawatt-hours of energy used in huge datacenters, the attack doesn't make economic sense. That's what I mean by saying the consensus system is built around having a huge network.
- josu 11y ago
  I see your point, thanks.
fazzone 11y ago
The way I see it, it is certainly possible for one entity to gain enough computing power to control 51% of the Bitcoin network. However, once you do that, if you actually do any of the bad things that you could do, people will notice, and consequently trust Bitcoin less, so the value goes down. So why make the huge investment to control Bitcoin for nefarious purposes if you will make it worthless in the process?

by josu 11y ago

jfoutz 11y ago

Perhaps your point is more subtle than i'm catching on to, but this is right out of the bitcoin paper abstract: "The longest chain not only serves as proof of the sequence of events witnessed, but proof that it came from the largest pool of CPU power. As long as a majority of CPU power is controlled by nodes that are not cooperating to attack the network, they'll generate the longest chain and outpace attackers." https://bitcoin.org/bitcoin.pdf https://bitcoin.org/bitcoin.pdf So, literally the group that burns the most energy/space/infrastructure is correct, as far as the system is concerned. if an attacker can burn more cpu, generate a longer chain, they win.

wlesieutre 11y ago

Maybe my wording is exaggerated. But the huge scale you'd need for a majority attack is the reason it's not viable, and the network is designed to encourage mining to drive that scale up. As the wiki points out, potential gains aren't total control: you get to reverse transactions but can't directly steal coins out of someone else's wallet. With a system of independent agents all trying to game the system to make money, it comes down to a cost/benefit analysis. If Bitcoin weren't designed to have the network scale that it does, the cost of making that attack could be cheap enough for it to be worth doing. But since the mining incentives are made to drive terawatt-hours of energy used in huge datacenters, the attack doesn't make economic sense. That's what I mean by saying the consensus system is built around having a huge network.

josu 11y ago
I see your point, thanks.

fazzone 11y ago

The way I see it, it is certainly possible for one entity to gain enough computing power to control 51% of the Bitcoin network. However, once you do that, if you actually do any of the bad things that you could do, people will notice, and consequently trust Bitcoin less, so the value goes down. So why make the huge investment to control Bitcoin for nefarious purposes if you will make it worthless in the process?