3 ms·
It is often asserted (for example, in the Bitcoin white paper [22]) that a cartel can double-spend Bitcoins. In a strict sense, this is true: a cartel can spend
by roymurdock 11y ago
It is often asserted (for example, in the Bitcoin white paper [22]) that a cartel can double-spend Bitcoins. In a strict sense, this is true: a cartel can spend a Bitcoin by paying it to a player Alice, receiving goods or services, and then shifting the consensus choice of history to a branch where that coin is instead paid to a different player Bob. However, we argue that double-spending by a cartel has a limited payoff. Bitcoins have value because people are willing to trade them for goods and services. If players were unwilling to accept Bitcoins for trade or unwilling to spend Bitcoins for fear of having their payments nullified, the value of Bitcoins would diminish significantly as players lost confidence in the system. Worse, because players are encouraged to generate a new identity for each transaction and because identities are not linked to any side information, players cannot easily determine whether a proffered payment is coming from the double-spending cartel or an honest user. Thus, a rational player should refuse to accept any payments when there is a significant threat of double-spending. As a cartel must outmine the entire Bitcoin network and thus outspend the entire Bitcoin network for as long as it would remain a cartel, we believe it is very unlikely that a cartel could double-spend enough to recover the cost of the attack.
An interesting facet of mining cartels is that they can censor certain transactions. The cartel can choose to ignore any transaction it does not want appended to the log. Further, the cartel can choose to treat any blocks appended by others to the log as forks which it will not attempt to extend. Thus, other players will naturally also abandon these transactions, possibly even consciously if the cartel announces that certain transactions (or transactors) are disfavored.
https://www.cs.princeton.edu/~kroll/papers/weis13_bitcoin.pdf https://www.cs.princeton.edu/~kroll/papers/weis13_bitcoin.pd...
- fragsworth 11y agoIt's still not obvious whether or not bitcoin is economically secure. With ETFs and other instruments, a mining cartel can potentially spend less money performing a 51% attack than they can make from a massive short sale of the currency.
- Animats 11y agoDouble-spending is detectable by anyone with a full Bitcoin node. It's not in the interest of the big players to double-spend; it would destroy their credibility and devalue their assets. My point is that in the arguments over block size, only what the big mining pools decide to do matters.
- ufo 11y ago> However, we argue that double-spending by a cartel has a limited payoff I find this "cheating the system is against your rational self-interest" argument to be very unconvincing. The whole point of the proof-of-work system is to allow for a decentralized and trustless system. If you are going to trust the miners with more than 50% of the network than you might as well centralize the ledger and stop burning coal to mine transactions.