5 ms·

Honest question from someone who doesn't know much about crypto stuff: What about the whole majority control thing? If another nation decides to scoop up a "co

by dbtc 2y ago

Honest question from someone who doesn't know much about crypto stuff: What about the whole majority control thing? If another nation decides to scoop up a "controlling share" could they somehow gain control of the ledger? Could that be part of the reasoning in any way?

wmf 2y ago
Most cyptos don't run on majority control. The rules of Bitcoin, for example, will never be changed.
- duskwuff 2y ago
  The "rules of Bitcoin" are squarely under the control of Bitcoin mining consortia. They have been changed before, and will undoubtedly change in the future.
  - wmf 2y ago
    They really aren't but that's a common misconception.
- winking070 2y ago
  Isn’t the thing we usually call “Bitcoin” today a fork of the original Bitcoin, precisely because a group decided to change the rules?
  - wmf 2y ago
    There were one or two bugfixes in the early days but Bitcoin is still basically on the original chain and very old versions of the code can still interoperate with the current chain. http://web.archive.org/web/20191223125456/https://www.trustnodes.com/2019/12/23/the-oldest-bitcoin-node-still-runs-seven-years-on http://web.archive.org/web/20191223125456/https://www.trustn...
UltraSane 2y ago
That is the most clever part of bitcoin. To do this one would need to have 51% of the hash rate which would be VERY expensive.
- dbtc 2y ago
  Ah, so not ownership of coins but computing power.
  - null0pointer 2y ago
    Yep, Bitcoin uses Proof of Work (computing power) for consensus, while some others like Ethereum use Proof of Stake (coin ownership).
- hcknwscommenter 2y ago
  I would disagree with "clever", but it certainly is currently expensive. The degree of expensive can fluctuate and could be influenced. It is not guaranteed to remain expensive, and a nation state like the US could control 51% of the hash rate if it wanted to, regardless of the expense, I think . . .
Terr_ 2y ago
> If another nation decides to scoop up a "controlling share" could they somehow gain control of the ledger? TLDR: They could, but it'd be difficult and might require things like creating a national botnet or knocking other people offline. How this works depends on "proof of work" versus "proof of stake" systems. Bitcoin is the former, where that kind of takeover requires controlling the majority of computing-power being actively used to confirm transactions. Imagine a branching tree growing upwards, where every node is "and then this transaction happened next." Everyone has already agreed to treat the longest total path as "the true one". This leads to a tree which is very very tall with lots of short dead stubs for transactions that had to be retried. People assume their transaction is safe when it is embedded far enough back that it looks like it'll always be on any longest path going forward. By controlling a majority of the computing power, you can create your own branch of events and ensure it will be longest, even if everybody else is making a deliberate effort to say "no, these other transactions happened instead."

by dbtc 2y ago

wmf 2y ago

Most cyptos don't run on majority control. The rules of Bitcoin, for example, will never be changed.

duskwuff 2y ago
The "rules of Bitcoin" are squarely under the control of Bitcoin mining consortia. They have been changed before, and will undoubtedly change in the future.
- wmf 2y ago
  They really aren't but that's a common misconception.
winking070 2y ago
Isn’t the thing we usually call “Bitcoin” today a fork of the original Bitcoin, precisely because a group decided to change the rules?
- wmf 2y ago
  There were one or two bugfixes in the early days but Bitcoin is still basically on the original chain and very old versions of the code can still interoperate with the current chain. http://web.archive.org/web/20191223125456/https://www.trustnodes.com/2019/12/23/the-oldest-bitcoin-node-still-runs-seven-years-on http://web.archive.org/web/20191223125456/https://www.trustn...

UltraSane 2y ago

That is the most clever part of bitcoin. To do this one would need to have 51% of the hash rate which would be VERY expensive.

dbtc 2y ago
Ah, so not ownership of coins but computing power.
- null0pointer 2y ago
  Yep, Bitcoin uses Proof of Work (computing power) for consensus, while some others like Ethereum use Proof of Stake (coin ownership).
hcknwscommenter 2y ago
I would disagree with "clever", but it certainly is currently expensive. The degree of expensive can fluctuate and could be influenced. It is not guaranteed to remain expensive, and a nation state like the US could control 51% of the hash rate if it wanted to, regardless of the expense, I think . . .

Terr_ 2y ago

> If another nation decides to scoop up a "controlling share" could they somehow gain control of the ledger? TLDR: They could, but it'd be difficult and might require things like creating a national botnet or knocking other people offline. How this works depends on "proof of work" versus "proof of stake" systems. Bitcoin is the former, where that kind of takeover requires controlling the majority of computing-power being actively used to confirm transactions. Imagine a branching tree growing upwards, where every node is "and then this transaction happened next." Everyone has already agreed to treat the longest total path as "the true one". This leads to a tree which is very very tall with lots of short dead stubs for transactions that had to be retried. People assume their transaction is safe when it is embedded far enough back that it looks like it'll always be on any longest path going forward. By controlling a majority of the computing power, you can create your own branch of events and ensure it will be longest, even if everybody else is making a deliberate effort to say "no, these other transactions happened instead."