6 ms·

The author misses the point. The security of the Bitcoin network (at least in terms of double-spending) is tied to the level of work required to generate a bloc

The author misses the point. The security of the Bitcoin network (at least in terms of double-spending) is tied to the level of work required to generate a block. If everyone decided to use only 1% of their computing power, they'd use less electricity, but the Bitcoin network would then be 100 times less secure. When people talk about "wasting resources", it's an indication they don't understand how Bitcoin works. One might as well complain about wasting resources on SSL when you could just send data in plaintext.

rheide 15y ago
The trick lies in changing the bitcoin protocol. If the majority of clients can agree on a way to use less resources, then that's what will be enforced by the network. If a new bitcoin client enforced a mandatory delay of one hour and invalidated blocks that were made before that one hour, we would effectively have added one hour of idle time to the network. This is not a solution, but it is a demonstration of how the protocol can be altered, as long as the majority agrees on it.
- gus_massa 15y ago
  The problem is that it is easy to simulate that you are waiting. 1) Save current time 2) "Precalculate" the current block 3) Wait until the 3601th second 4) Publish the block that you "calculate" in just 1 second 5) Profit??
  - rheide 15y ago
    If the calculation for the next block requires the (network's validation of the) current block then you can only always calculate one block ahead.
  - _ikke_ 15y ago
    The problem is that other people might have already found other blocks, rendering your block useless.
- weavejester 15y ago
  The problem is what you define as "a majority". If it's just a majority of clients, then an attacker could just start up a million new client processes and outvote the existing network. If we're talking a majority of unique IP addresses, then anyone with access to a large IP address block could outvote the network. This approach also wouldn't be feasible for IPv6, where IP addresses are not a scarce resource. The Bitcoin approach is to define "a majority" as the majority that has the most computing power. Because computing power is always going to cost money, this guarantees that anyone wishing to subvert the network needs to outspend all the honest miners. If you can think of another way of defining "a majority" without needing a lot of CPU resources, a lot of people would be interested in hearing your solution.
  - pash 15y ago
    > If you can think of another way of defining "a majority" without needing a lot of CPU resources, a lot of people would be interested in hearing your solution. Let Bitcoins equal votes. Set up a Bitcoin account for each option in the vote; send Bitcoins to the account associated with the option you prefer. Transaction verification acts as an electoral audit. That sort of system would give power over the money supply to those invested in the currency, which seems to be exactly what the Bitcoin community wants.
    - weavejester 15y ago
      Your solution is bootstrapping in the very literal and very impossible sense. You can't use bitcoins as votes to verify transactions, because until you verify the transaction chain, you don't know how many bitcoins anyone has.
      - pash 15y ago
        The question was how to allow clients to form a new consensus. I did not suggest using Bitcoins to verify transactions; rather, I suggested using verified transactions to verify the will of the Bitcoin community.

rheide 15y ago

The trick lies in changing the bitcoin protocol. If the majority of clients can agree on a way to use less resources, then that's what will be enforced by the network. If a new bitcoin client enforced a mandatory delay of one hour and invalidated blocks that were made before that one hour, we would effectively have added one hour of idle time to the network. This is not a solution, but it is a demonstration of how the protocol can be altered, as long as the majority agrees on it.

gus_massa 15y ago
The problem is that it is easy to simulate that you are waiting. 1) Save current time 2) "Precalculate" the current block 3) Wait until the 3601th second 4) Publish the block that you "calculate" in just 1 second 5) Profit??
- rheide 15y ago
  If the calculation for the next block requires the (network's validation of the) current block then you can only always calculate one block ahead.
- _ikke_ 15y ago
  The problem is that other people might have already found other blocks, rendering your block useless.
weavejester 15y ago
The problem is what you define as "a majority". If it's just a majority of clients, then an attacker could just start up a million new client processes and outvote the existing network. If we're talking a majority of unique IP addresses, then anyone with access to a large IP address block could outvote the network. This approach also wouldn't be feasible for IPv6, where IP addresses are not a scarce resource. The Bitcoin approach is to define "a majority" as the majority that has the most computing power. Because computing power is always going to cost money, this guarantees that anyone wishing to subvert the network needs to outspend all the honest miners. If you can think of another way of defining "a majority" without needing a lot of CPU resources, a lot of people would be interested in hearing your solution.
- pash 15y ago
  > If you can think of another way of defining "a majority" without needing a lot of CPU resources, a lot of people would be interested in hearing your solution. Let Bitcoins equal votes. Set up a Bitcoin account for each option in the vote; send Bitcoins to the account associated with the option you prefer. Transaction verification acts as an electoral audit. That sort of system would give power over the money supply to those invested in the currency, which seems to be exactly what the Bitcoin community wants.
  - weavejester 15y ago
    Your solution is bootstrapping in the very literal and very impossible sense. You can't use bitcoins as votes to verify transactions, because until you verify the transaction chain, you don't know how many bitcoins anyone has.
    - pash 15y ago
      The question was how to allow clients to form a new consensus. I did not suggest using Bitcoins to verify transactions; rather, I suggested using verified transactions to verify the will of the Bitcoin community.