4 ms·

> Blockchain is built from the ground up to prevent exactly one type of security vulnerability: man in the middle attacks. It is absolutely abysmal at protectin

> Blockchain is built from the ground up to prevent exactly one type of security vulnerability: man in the middle attacks. It is absolutely abysmal at protecting against any other form of attack. I wonder where that Man in the Middle attack thing is coming from? Dan mentioned it in his recent video, so he must have picked it up somewhere. If you Google the term + blockchain, you'll mostly find some discussion about potential attack vectors regarding wallets. It's not a term used in academic blockchain literature as far as I aware. It's not used in the Bitcoin whitepaper. Man in the middle has a specific meaning, and I don't see how describing blockchain's main purpose as preventing this kind of attack makes a terrible amount of sense. Ultimately, what you critique is simply an inherent part of the system. These are not oversights. These are basic consequences of the whole approach. To say "blockchain evangelists suffer a deficiency in not addressing them" is merely saying "there should be no blockchain evangelists".

breadbreadbread 5y ago
MITM is a networking term for when an agent in a trust based communication system falsifies data in order to exploit the system. I don't think using a term that isn't directly used in a whitepaper is a flaw in my argument. Decentralization, in general, guards against MITM by using consensus mechanisms instead of trusting any individual link, so blockchains are theoretically resilient against individual agents breaking the rules. That is literally the basis of blockchain tech. What I am getting at is that there are still ways to exploit a system while technically operating "within the rules" and blockchain makes those easier to get away with. > Ultimately, what you critique is simply an inherent part of the system YES THATS THE PROBLEM. Systems arent immutable facts of the world. We can change them. Systems are built by people and people can be wrong or at the very least mislead.
ShamelessC 5y ago
> If you Google the term + blockchain You may want to re-run that search without "blockchain". It's an _extremely_ common phrase in information security. Like - NETSEC 101 sort of stuff. > It's not a term used in academic blockchain literature as far as I aware. It's not used in the Bitcoin whitepaper. I don't even...
- miracle2k 5y ago
  Maybe it is possible to misunderstand my comment. I am saying the term seems unused in academic/technical papers around blockchain, which would support my assertion that it is non-sensical to claim that blockchains are supposed to protect against man in the middle attacks.
wmf 5y ago
I think it would be more accurate to say that crypto/blockchain solves Sybil attacks and the Byzantine agreement problem, both of which were discussed from the beginning. To say "blockchain evangelists suffer a deficiency in not addressing them" is merely saying "there should be no blockchain evangelists". Honestly... yes. If there are a bunch of problems preventing digital cash from working and you solve two of those problems then you haven't created digital cash; you've created an attractive nuisance.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]

breadbreadbread 5y ago

MITM is a networking term for when an agent in a trust based communication system falsifies data in order to exploit the system. I don't think using a term that isn't directly used in a whitepaper is a flaw in my argument. Decentralization, in general, guards against MITM by using consensus mechanisms instead of trusting any individual link, so blockchains are theoretically resilient against individual agents breaking the rules. That is literally the basis of blockchain tech. What I am getting at is that there are still ways to exploit a system while technically operating "within the rules" and blockchain makes those easier to get away with. > Ultimately, what you critique is simply an inherent part of the system YES THATS THE PROBLEM. Systems arent immutable facts of the world. We can change them. Systems are built by people and people can be wrong or at the very least mislead.

ShamelessC 5y ago

> If you Google the term + blockchain You may want to re-run that search without "blockchain". It's an _extremely_ common phrase in information security. Like - NETSEC 101 sort of stuff. > It's not a term used in academic blockchain literature as far as I aware. It's not used in the Bitcoin whitepaper. I don't even...

miracle2k 5y ago
Maybe it is possible to misunderstand my comment. I am saying the term seems unused in academic/technical papers around blockchain, which would support my assertion that it is non-sensical to claim that blockchains are supposed to protect against man in the middle attacks.

wmf 5y ago

I think it would be more accurate to say that crypto/blockchain solves Sybil attacks and the Byzantine agreement problem, both of which were discussed from the beginning. To say "blockchain evangelists suffer a deficiency in not addressing them" is merely saying "there should be no blockchain evangelists". Honestly... yes. If there are a bunch of problems preventing digital cash from working and you solve two of those problems then you haven't created digital cash; you've created an attractive nuisance.

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]