6 ms·

This is a big misunderstanding of bitcoin, and if you believe it I can understand why you might think bitcoin is not special. The truth is that the everyday us

by Taek 9y ago

This is a big misunderstanding of bitcoin, and if you believe it I can understand why you might think bitcoin is not special. The truth is that the everyday user gets full control over the law of their currency simply by running a full node. Your node will reject any transactions that do not comply with the rules of your node. The soveirgnty of bitcoin comes from knowing that the devs can't force an update upon you or the network, if you do not consent you can always reject the change.

Retric 9y ago
Without massive investments in ASIC's you have effectively zero influence. Until you have 51% of the hash power you can't make any changes as you simply get ignored unless you follow the exact same rules as the majority.
- tomsthumb 9y ago
  > Until you have 51% of the hash power you can't make any changes as you simply get ignored unless you follow the exact same rules as the majority This is exactly their point. This applies to everyone and all organizational entities.
  - Robotbeat 9y ago
    Well, "whoever is in power makes the rules" applies to everyone and all organizational entities, too. In this case, we're talking hash power, but same thing, isn't it?
    - _coldfire 9y ago
      A huge amount of hashpower was behind the desire for bitcoin cash, and that didn't work out. Think some underestimate firstmover advantage and end-user inertia.
- Taek 9y ago
  The point is not that you can set rules, it's that you can prevent other people from changing the rules without your consent, even if they are the majority. You still have freedom to pick the rules to a small degree though - you choose which blockchain to use. Don't like bitcoin? Try bitcoin cash/ethereum/ethereum classic/litecoin/dogecoin/Monero/siacoin/decred/etc etc. A common misconception is that miners can pick the rules, but they can't. They can only choose to enforce additional rules (which is powerful), they can't ever violate the original rules.
- sneak 9y ago
  Actually, even with 51% of hashpower, you cannot force all the other nodes to forward or propagate your invalid blocks if you decide to start changing the rules. This is a common misconception about bitcoin. Every single node on the network validates every single block, not just miners.
  - tboyd47 9y ago
    Thank you. I see this argument pop up on HN all the time and can't understand why it's so common. You'd think if a 51% attack were such a threat to Bitcoin it would have at least been attempted by now, after so many years.
    - Dylan16807 9y ago
      Why do you think that? Being able to fake blocks isn't significantly more useful than being able to double spend. I don't see why that would be the tipping point. The reason you don't see these attacks is that they are difficult and very expensive and they would ruin the value of the coin so you can't even profit off it.
      - tboyd47 9y ago
        That is precisely my point
ballenf 9y ago
Wouldn't you be creating your own fork? A fork of one where peers would then reject every message from you? No man is an island, unless he wants to completely devalue his bitcoin.
- polyomino 9y ago
  They wouldn’t reject messages from you so long as they are valid on their nodes.
  - ryan_j_naughton 9y ago
    Right and thus consensus exists. And that consensus consolidates to a single set of rules (and any major deviations result in forks).
AFNobody 9y ago
A 51% plutocracy is still a form of state governance that qualifies as fiat money and effectively can destroy the value of your coins if you resist. It is really no different than the government fining you for disobedience. There are philosophical theoretical arguments against this, not pragmatic ones.
- AgentME 9y ago
  A 51% attack means a lot of bad things can happen to bitcoin. Its value would probably crash if an individual got 51% of the power just because it is no longer truly decentralized, even if they don't abuse that power. Bitcoin was made with the idea that a 51% attack would be unlikely and unfeasible; as long as that holds, I'm not sure what value your comparison has. You might as well make a comparison to any other possible disaster. ("A solar flare is a form of state governance that will destroy the value of your coins...")
  - jdietrich 9y ago
    The top four pools have ~55% of the total hashing power. They could orchestrate a 51% attack with a conference call. As we've seen with the BTH/SegWit2X fiasco, Bitcoin is anything but democratic or decentralised. A cartel is every bit as dangerous as a monopoly.
    - ric2b 9y ago
      And what exactly do you think a 51% attack can do? I'll tell you what: censor transactions and make double-spends. Not exactly end of Bitcoin danger, is it?
      - Dylan16807 9y ago
        If someone had unrestricted ability to double-spend, getting around any attempted countermeasures, they would be able to turn every exchange into a money printing machine. It's hard for me to see how it wouldn't be the end of Bitcoin.
  - 9y ago

by Taek 9y ago

Retric 9y ago

Without massive investments in ASIC's you have effectively zero influence. Until you have 51% of the hash power you can't make any changes as you simply get ignored unless you follow the exact same rules as the majority.

tomsthumb 9y ago
> Until you have 51% of the hash power you can't make any changes as you simply get ignored unless you follow the exact same rules as the majority This is exactly their point. This applies to everyone and all organizational entities.
- Robotbeat 9y ago
  Well, "whoever is in power makes the rules" applies to everyone and all organizational entities, too. In this case, we're talking hash power, but same thing, isn't it?
  - _coldfire 9y ago
    A huge amount of hashpower was behind the desire for bitcoin cash, and that didn't work out. Think some underestimate firstmover advantage and end-user inertia.
Taek 9y ago
The point is not that you can set rules, it's that you can prevent other people from changing the rules without your consent, even if they are the majority. You still have freedom to pick the rules to a small degree though - you choose which blockchain to use. Don't like bitcoin? Try bitcoin cash/ethereum/ethereum classic/litecoin/dogecoin/Monero/siacoin/decred/etc etc. A common misconception is that miners can pick the rules, but they can't. They can only choose to enforce additional rules (which is powerful), they can't ever violate the original rules.
sneak 9y ago
Actually, even with 51% of hashpower, you cannot force all the other nodes to forward or propagate your invalid blocks if you decide to start changing the rules. This is a common misconception about bitcoin. Every single node on the network validates every single block, not just miners.
- tboyd47 9y ago
  Thank you. I see this argument pop up on HN all the time and can't understand why it's so common. You'd think if a 51% attack were such a threat to Bitcoin it would have at least been attempted by now, after so many years.
  - Dylan16807 9y ago
    Why do you think that? Being able to fake blocks isn't significantly more useful than being able to double spend. I don't see why that would be the tipping point. The reason you don't see these attacks is that they are difficult and very expensive and they would ruin the value of the coin so you can't even profit off it.
    - tboyd47 9y ago
      That is precisely my point

ballenf 9y ago

Wouldn't you be creating your own fork? A fork of one where peers would then reject every message from you? No man is an island, unless he wants to completely devalue his bitcoin.

polyomino 9y ago
They wouldn’t reject messages from you so long as they are valid on their nodes.
- ryan_j_naughton 9y ago
  Right and thus consensus exists. And that consensus consolidates to a single set of rules (and any major deviations result in forks).

AFNobody 9y ago

A 51% plutocracy is still a form of state governance that qualifies as fiat money and effectively can destroy the value of your coins if you resist. It is really no different than the government fining you for disobedience. There are philosophical theoretical arguments against this, not pragmatic ones.

AgentME 9y ago
A 51% attack means a lot of bad things can happen to bitcoin. Its value would probably crash if an individual got 51% of the power just because it is no longer truly decentralized, even if they don't abuse that power. Bitcoin was made with the idea that a 51% attack would be unlikely and unfeasible; as long as that holds, I'm not sure what value your comparison has. You might as well make a comparison to any other possible disaster. ("A solar flare is a form of state governance that will destroy the value of your coins...")
- jdietrich 9y ago
  The top four pools have ~55% of the total hashing power. They could orchestrate a 51% attack with a conference call. As we've seen with the BTH/SegWit2X fiasco, Bitcoin is anything but democratic or decentralised. A cartel is every bit as dangerous as a monopoly.
  - ric2b 9y ago
    And what exactly do you think a 51% attack can do? I'll tell you what: censor transactions and make double-spends. Not exactly end of Bitcoin danger, is it?
    - Dylan16807 9y ago
      If someone had unrestricted ability to double-spend, getting around any attempted countermeasures, they would be able to turn every exchange into a money printing machine. It's hard for me to see how it wouldn't be the end of Bitcoin.
- 9y ago