4 ms·

It seems odd to not discuss the more fundamental issues of trusting the infrastructure. All this virtual reality is on top of a physical reality controlled by g

It seems odd to not discuss the more fundamental issues of trusting the infrastructure. All this virtual reality is on top of a physical reality controlled by governments and powerful interests. What happens when said powers declare cryptocurrencies illegal (app store removals, RST packets, etc.), or try to take them over with brute force?

chejazi 6y ago
Assuming N isn't 1, they should be able to survive a ban by a single government. Can be extended to multiple governments
Taek 6y ago
This tends to be a focus of the Bitcoin community a lot more than other cryptocurrency communities. Bitcoin has technologies such as ASN based sybil attack protections [1], satellite broadcasts that cover most of the land area of the earth [2], and setups that allow Bitcoin to be broadcast over Ham Radio [3]. Of course that's not to say the problem is ignored by other communities. Many people are well aware of the full set of dependencies of these crypto projects and the ways that external forces might be disruptive. And many people are working on increasingly sophisticated ways to eliminate these dependencies or ensure viable alternatives if worst comes to worst. [1]: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/16599 https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/16599 [2]: https://blockstream.com/satellite/#satellite_network-coverage https://blockstream.com/satellite/#satellite_network-coverag... [3]: https://www.wired.com/story/cypherpunks-bitcoin-ham-radio/ https://www.wired.com/story/cypherpunks-bitcoin-ham-radio/
- brian_cloutier 6y ago
  These are all cool technologies which raise the bar an attacker must meet in order to disrupt Bitcoin, but it's worth noting that at very least America and China could absolutely overwhelm those defenses. The security of nakamoto consensus (Bitcoin and co) relies on a level of broadcast which is pretty incompatible with a world where the network is hostile and looking to disrupt your traffic.
  - centimeter 6y ago
    > relies on a level of broadcast which is pretty incompatible with a world where the network is hostile and looking to disrupt your traffic. It would be prohibitively expensive and difficult to disrupt point-to-point radio (e.g. ham) and satellite communications enough to cripple Bitcoin.
    - brian_cloutier 6y ago
      The satellite doesn't help very much. It doesn't help at all if you want to send a transaction or Mike your own blocks. It's also very easy to know whether it's broadcasting. So if the mechanism by which Bitcoin is banned is legal, it's easy to find the owner and prosecute them for breaking the law. I'm not incredibly familiar with ham, but if you ever broadcast then you're inviting the authorities to find you, and shut you down. If you strictly communicate point-to-point it doesn't seem likely that you'd be able to tell the entire world about new blocks within a reasonable about of time. If you keep the 10 minute block interval then delays longer than, say, 1 minute, would be extremely problematic. I'm not sure how a Ham radio network could reliably tell the world about new blocks within 60 seconds without alerting the authorities.
- chrisweekly 6y ago
  Good points. Oh and FYI the idiom is "worse comes to worst" (analogous to "push comes to shove" -- an intensification past an activation threshold or tipping-point)
ignoramous 6y ago
> It seems odd to not discuss the more fundamental issues of trusting the infrastructure. It would be odd if the Blockchain / Crypto-currency market came crashing down. Like most nutritionists who do not understand the popularity of sugary drinks or fast food chains, I think, news.yc fails to understand the Crypto-currency / Blockchain market.
- theamk 6y ago
  I am sure that nutritionists _understand_ the popularity of sugary drinks, as in, they know what human motivations are, and they know why people prefer them to better foods. But nutritionists also _understand_ that sugary drinks are bad in the long run, and that is why they keep saying that one should drink less of them, over and over. If at least few people get convinced, stop drinking sugary drinks, and avoid diabetes and heart disease, they nutritionists succeeded. The same logic applies to blockchain/crypto-currency warnings that HN commenters produce.
brian_cloutier 6y ago
I want to defend Vitalik here and say it's unreasonable to expect him to address everything in a single blog post, there are a lot more failure modes than just malicious networks, none of which are explicitly mentioned. [1] Each of these kinds of trust fit relatively neatly into the framework he proposes though. Blockchains are designed to run on tens of thousands of nodes distributed around the world, which naturally insulates them from any one country deciding they don't want cryptocurrencies to be used within their borders. And even if every other country decided to ban Bitcoin, if America still allowed it then Bitcoin the protocol would happily continue to work within America's borders, in that sense it has 1-of-N trust in countries allowing it. On the other hand, if America or China decided they did not want Bitcoin to exist any more, and they were truly willing to do whatever it takes to shut it down, they have enough tools at their disposal to shut it down. This situation doesn't quite fit into V's framework, I think because some of the N are more important than others? [1]: - Do you trust whoever writes your client / mining software to write code without showstopping bugs? - Do you trust them to use a reliable build process? - Which websites do you trust to tell you what their public keys are, so you can check the signatures of the binaries you run? - Do you trust whoever sold you the computer you're running your client / mining software on? - Do you trust the mining rig manufacturers? - If your protocol relies on a notion of time, do you trust the time servers? - Do you trust mining pool operators not to use their hash power maliciously? - Do you trust that if someone found a way to forge signatures, the rest of the world would know?
ccktlmazeltov 6y ago
Some of them are censorship resistant

chejazi 6y ago

Assuming N isn't 1, they should be able to survive a ban by a single government. Can be extended to multiple governments

Taek 6y ago

This tends to be a focus of the Bitcoin community a lot more than other cryptocurrency communities. Bitcoin has technologies such as ASN based sybil attack protections [1], satellite broadcasts that cover most of the land area of the earth [2], and setups that allow Bitcoin to be broadcast over Ham Radio [3]. Of course that's not to say the problem is ignored by other communities. Many people are well aware of the full set of dependencies of these crypto projects and the ways that external forces might be disruptive. And many people are working on increasingly sophisticated ways to eliminate these dependencies or ensure viable alternatives if worst comes to worst. [1]: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/16599 https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/16599 [2]: https://blockstream.com/satellite/#satellite_network-coverage https://blockstream.com/satellite/#satellite_network-coverag... [3]: https://www.wired.com/story/cypherpunks-bitcoin-ham-radio/ https://www.wired.com/story/cypherpunks-bitcoin-ham-radio/

brian_cloutier 6y ago
These are all cool technologies which raise the bar an attacker must meet in order to disrupt Bitcoin, but it's worth noting that at very least America and China could absolutely overwhelm those defenses. The security of nakamoto consensus (Bitcoin and co) relies on a level of broadcast which is pretty incompatible with a world where the network is hostile and looking to disrupt your traffic.
- centimeter 6y ago
  > relies on a level of broadcast which is pretty incompatible with a world where the network is hostile and looking to disrupt your traffic. It would be prohibitively expensive and difficult to disrupt point-to-point radio (e.g. ham) and satellite communications enough to cripple Bitcoin.
  - brian_cloutier 6y ago
    The satellite doesn't help very much. It doesn't help at all if you want to send a transaction or Mike your own blocks. It's also very easy to know whether it's broadcasting. So if the mechanism by which Bitcoin is banned is legal, it's easy to find the owner and prosecute them for breaking the law. I'm not incredibly familiar with ham, but if you ever broadcast then you're inviting the authorities to find you, and shut you down. If you strictly communicate point-to-point it doesn't seem likely that you'd be able to tell the entire world about new blocks within a reasonable about of time. If you keep the 10 minute block interval then delays longer than, say, 1 minute, would be extremely problematic. I'm not sure how a Ham radio network could reliably tell the world about new blocks within 60 seconds without alerting the authorities.
chrisweekly 6y ago
Good points. Oh and FYI the idiom is "worse comes to worst" (analogous to "push comes to shove" -- an intensification past an activation threshold or tipping-point)

ignoramous 6y ago

> It seems odd to not discuss the more fundamental issues of trusting the infrastructure. It would be odd if the Blockchain / Crypto-currency market came crashing down. Like most nutritionists who do not understand the popularity of sugary drinks or fast food chains, I think, news.yc fails to understand the Crypto-currency / Blockchain market.

theamk 6y ago
I am sure that nutritionists _understand_ the popularity of sugary drinks, as in, they know what human motivations are, and they know why people prefer them to better foods. But nutritionists also _understand_ that sugary drinks are bad in the long run, and that is why they keep saying that one should drink less of them, over and over. If at least few people get convinced, stop drinking sugary drinks, and avoid diabetes and heart disease, they nutritionists succeeded. The same logic applies to blockchain/crypto-currency warnings that HN commenters produce.

brian_cloutier 6y ago

I want to defend Vitalik here and say it's unreasonable to expect him to address everything in a single blog post, there are a lot more failure modes than just malicious networks, none of which are explicitly mentioned. [1] Each of these kinds of trust fit relatively neatly into the framework he proposes though. Blockchains are designed to run on tens of thousands of nodes distributed around the world, which naturally insulates them from any one country deciding they don't want cryptocurrencies to be used within their borders. And even if every other country decided to ban Bitcoin, if America still allowed it then Bitcoin the protocol would happily continue to work within America's borders, in that sense it has 1-of-N trust in countries allowing it. On the other hand, if America or China decided they did not want Bitcoin to exist any more, and they were truly willing to do whatever it takes to shut it down, they have enough tools at their disposal to shut it down. This situation doesn't quite fit into V's framework, I think because some of the N are more important than others? [1]: - Do you trust whoever writes your client / mining software to write code without showstopping bugs? - Do you trust them to use a reliable build process? - Which websites do you trust to tell you what their public keys are, so you can check the signatures of the binaries you run? - Do you trust whoever sold you the computer you're running your client / mining software on? - Do you trust the mining rig manufacturers? - If your protocol relies on a notion of time, do you trust the time servers? - Do you trust mining pool operators not to use their hash power maliciously? - Do you trust that if someone found a way to forge signatures, the rest of the world would know?

ccktlmazeltov 6y ago

Some of them are censorship resistant