3 ms·

Would it be possible to set up a network like folding@home designed to destroy bitcoin? It would be an interesting state sponsored exercise.

cocktailpeanuts 5y ago
"If a greedy attacker is able to assemble more CPU power than all the honest nodes, he would have to choose between using it to defraud people by stealing back his payments, or using it to generate new coins. He ought to find it more profitable to play by the rules, such rules that favour him with more new coins than everyone else combined, than to undermine the system and the validity of his own wealth." - Section 6, Bitcoin Whitepaper
- lxgr 5y ago
  This implies a "rational" actor in the sense that they would not be willing to effectively set money on fire to hurt other system participants. A nation state wanting to destabilize or destroy trust in a given cryptocurrency might not fit that definition. I don't think that's a likely outcome, though – governments have much more economical tools at their disposal achieving the same outcome.
- warkdarrior 5y ago
  As the article explains, those who would want to attack Bitcoin would not care about the costs involved, since their goal is to destroy the network, not to make money off of it.
- Ieghaehia9 5y ago
  The big caveat is obviously the word "greedy". A state need not be greedy, nor for that matter needs a group of politically motivated people running a LOIC against any Bitcoin node they may find.
pjc50 5y ago
Massive waste of time; if the US wanted to "destroy" Bitcoin they'd just Magnitsky Act it. Make it illegal to touch any financial institution that handles it or any country that hasn't also declared it illegal. Not 100% effective - it hasn't destroyed Cuba - but would cut off the supply of money, advertising, and the ability of people to pay ransoms in it.

3 ms·

Would it be possible to set up a network like folding@home designed to destroy bitcoin? It would be an interesting state sponsored exercise.

by smackeyacky 5y ago

cocktailpeanuts 5y ago
"If a greedy attacker is able to assemble more CPU power than all the honest nodes, he would have to choose between using it to defraud people by stealing back his payments, or using it to generate new coins. He ought to find it more profitable to play by the rules, such rules that favour him with more new coins than everyone else combined, than to undermine the system and the validity of his own wealth." - Section 6, Bitcoin Whitepaper
- lxgr 5y ago
  This implies a "rational" actor in the sense that they would not be willing to effectively set money on fire to hurt other system participants. A nation state wanting to destabilize or destroy trust in a given cryptocurrency might not fit that definition. I don't think that's a likely outcome, though – governments have much more economical tools at their disposal achieving the same outcome.
- warkdarrior 5y ago
  As the article explains, those who would want to attack Bitcoin would not care about the costs involved, since their goal is to destroy the network, not to make money off of it.
- Ieghaehia9 5y ago
  The big caveat is obviously the word "greedy". A state need not be greedy, nor for that matter needs a group of politically motivated people running a LOIC against any Bitcoin node they may find.
pjc50 5y ago
Massive waste of time; if the US wanted to "destroy" Bitcoin they'd just Magnitsky Act it. Make it illegal to touch any financial institution that handles it or any country that hasn't also declared it illegal. Not 100% effective - it hasn't destroyed Cuba - but would cut off the supply of money, advertising, and the ability of people to pay ransoms in it.