4 ms·
This is the same panic-prone author (@el33th4xor) who, in early November 2013 with Bitcoin at about $220, wrote "@el33th4xor: You heard it here first: now is a
by gojomo 12y ago
This is the same panic-prone author (@el33th4xor) who, in early November 2013 with Bitcoin at about $220, wrote "@el33th4xor: You heard it here first: now is a good time to sell your Bitcoins" (https://twitter.com/el33th4xor/status/397219415025934336 https://twitter.com/el33th4xor/status/397219415025934336)
This was just before releasing some research that he thought would cause a confidence collapse. (That is, his prediction was almost self-consciously attempting market-manipulation.) In fact, the paper just formalized some concerns discussed in the mining community for years.
So then, rather than collapsing, Bitcoin went on an epic rally, and hasn't been below $339 since the same week of that doomsaying prediction.
There is certainly danger in one entity controlling 51% of the hashing power. But everyone's known this risk, as one of the design assumptions of the system, from the beginning... and also seen the tipping point approach/recede/approach repeatedly. And also, the "Bitcoin lunatic fringe", who this author mocks, has so far been right about the pool(s) attaining such power refraining from taking destructive (and self-bankrupting) next steps.
So: focused concern, yes. But @el33th4xor-style panic, no.
Further, any 'hard fork' (or forks) that were to remedy pool issues, using the "well-known" techniques referenced, would almost certainly retain some continuity with prior key balances. That is: imagine the most destructive transition possible. A total civil war between mining pools. Irreconcilable dissension in the core team (or offshoots thereof). Collapse of the Bitcoin price to values of 1-2 years ago. Still, at the end of that process, there are one or more "offshoot" chains, adopting the Bitcoin history as their own, patched and stronger than before, with pre-crisis Bitcoin balances intact.
(That is: a 51% cartel may not be actually "good" news... but it is survivable and perhaps even necessary.)
So if you like to try to trade in and out of predicted market panics, like @el33th4xor, maybe there are some trading plays here. But if you just like cryptocurrency for the long haul, keep your Bitcoin private keys (end eyes) safe & dry, and trust evolution. There are enough smart, well-funded, and relatively cool heads involved that @el33th4xor's predictions are just a car alarm going off in the night, whether the car is actually at risk or not.
- deleted 12y ago[deleted]
- emin-gun-sirer 12y agoNice ad hominems you've got there. >In fact, the paper just formalized some concerns discussed in the mining community for years. This is false. Discussed here: http://hackingdistributed.com/2013/11/09/no-you-dint/ http://hackingdistributed.com/2013/11/09/no-you-dint/ >the "Bitcoin lunatic fringe" this author mocks has been right about the pool(s) having such power refraining from destructive (and self-bankrupting) next steps. No. The Bitcoin lunatic fringe was adamant that no pool would willingly cross the 50% boundary. That just happened. Models and reasoning based on "no rational miner would do X" are clearly flawed, partly because the miners may not be rational, or partly because they are rational within a time-frame not modeled. In any case, people who reasoned like you have now been shown conclusively to have the model wrong. This is an opportunity to fix the protocol, not shill for the price, and certainly not to engage in ad hominems. Cheers.
- gojomo 12y agoI think your track record of alarmism and disrespect to non-academics is relevant, but even if you classify it 'ad hominem', you've earned it with your own prolific slurs of critics. I've addressed your continued "no-you-dint" willful-blindness about earlier analysis elsewhere... including on your own blog at (http://hackingdistributed.com/2013/11/14/response-to-feedback-on-selfish-mining/?utm_source=disqus-dashboard#comment-1125375004 http://hackingdistributed.com/2013/11/14/response-to-feedbac...). You failed to discover (and thus footnote) prior community work, from years earlier, that did everything except for your more-rigorous boundary formalizations. So again, nice write-up, but exaggerated novelty. The interested can follow the links and decide for themselves. I'm sure someone said no pool would ever even try to get 51%. Others simply said a pool in such a position wouldn't self-destruct the entire ecosystem, against their own interests. (Instead, they behave like the 'stationary bandit' of Mancur Olson's political-economy. Not ideal, and not what Bitcoin intended, and worthy of attempted-fixes... but also not an instant and unsurvivable crisis.) It's this latter prediction, of stability even in the presence of explicit (or secret) 51% cartels, that is still, so far, outperforming your own. For now they have the same claim to "I told you so!" as you do.
- deleted 12y ago[deleted]