4 ms·

Satoshi wrote this in the original Bitcoin paper, which logic I think still holds today: If a greedy attacker is able to assemble more CPU power than all

by sktrdie 12y ago

Satoshi wrote this in the original Bitcoin paper, which logic I think still holds today: 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.

kolev 12y ago
Like most Americans, you think it's all about money.
- jsmthrowaway 12y ago
  Although this is the weirdest, most out-of-place comment I have seen in a while, my life has taught me that "it's all about money" is the safest position to take in almost any scenario. That is potentially a product of our cultural and economic structure, but I have observed it to be true worldwide; I don't think we are wrong in general.
  - serf 12y ago
    I think that it's a correct position now, but probably temporary in some sense. We didn't start with a cash system, and we may not end up with one, but for this moment in time it's a useful way to measure value/wealth. Ideally one would think "it's all about happiness" would be the goal, not a measure of asset worth, but rather contentedness perhaps? It doesn't take much thinking to imagine why we can't function in that way, however.
  - conectorx 12y ago
    Just because money seems to be the most tangible thing in life it does not apply to the world. Some people value more love, health or ideals than money. Those people are quite rare to find, but they exist either unknown or known (such as Jesus, Hitler or El Che).
  - kolev 12y ago
    I feel sorry for you then. First, you can't understand what I meant, and, second, the basic life lesson is that money can't make you happy and feel accomplished (unless you're too primitive), but the lack of it, agreed, can definitely make you unhappy, so, it's not about hoarding as much dollar signs as possible, but it's about having enough not get unhappy and I think most of us here don't have the issue that most people around the globe have nowadays - I'm sure we're in the top 5% globally in terms of income. The whole vicious circle of greed never has a happy ending. In most cases, the inability to be happy is a mental problem, which separates the miserable mass from the blissful few. Don't get me wrong, I have this condition as well, but I've acknowledged my issues and I'm working to address them. All the wisdom of the ages can be compressed in just two words: "memento mori" or in the more accessible form for the masses: "carpe diem". Anyway, outside of the basic well-being, real happiness is helping our civilization advance a step ahead. An Instagram can make you more money than SpaceX, for example, but launching which will make you happier and more accomplished? Which one will put your name in the history books and leave no doubt that your life was meaningful.
- angersock 12y ago
  Care to elaborate on this?
  - kolev 12y ago
    People can decide to do an attack on Bitcoin for reasons other than money: fun, fame, politics, cyberterrorism, etc. Although money is everything today, it won't be tomorrow if we really want to be something meaningful happening in this civilization. The current order does not foster higher values that have no economical value.
    - ekm2 12y ago
      I do not understand why kolev is being downvoted.Is it so hard for techies to get that there are people with motives other than money?Think different.
      - kolev 12y ago
        Often people don't like the truth in their face. :) I'm sure most of the richest techies didn't have money as their primary driver. Money always comes as a bonus for a job well done.
zorbo 12y ago
The whole Game Theory element the bitcoiners keep throwing around surprises me the most. It's not as in you can apply game theory like that in practice. It also assumes rational players. People are anything but rational. Game theory works in numbers, but not on an individual level like that. Besides, there are plenty of profitable avenues if you control 51%.
- eatitraw 12y ago
  > It also assumes rational players. All models are wrong, but some are useful. What is the chance that there is an irrational player that spends a lot of money only to destroy bitcoin? This kind of player has to be politically motivated, not just simply irrational. > Besides, there are plenty of profitable avenues if you control 51% Like what? Basically you can do a few things: 1) Mine all the current coins 2) Double-spend 3) Not confirm any transactions All of them are harmful to the network. However, given that it is not an actual single entity that controls 51%, I wouldn't be worried much about anything except 1)
  - TheLoneWolfling 12y ago
    4) Only confirm transactions that give you large transaction fees, and disallow all others Etc, etc.
  - KingMob 12y ago
    Game theory is not even a useful model here. There are plenty of rational players who would desire the downfall of Bitcoin. The game theorists assume at the outset that everyone involved's primary financial interest is in a valid working Bitcoin network. However, banks and Western Union would not desire competitors for international currency transfer. Governments may not want currencies they can't control. The Russian mafia may want to exploit it for short-term gain or launder money. And now that there's a single pool with >51% of the CPU power, the difficulty of a hostile takeover just went way, way down. Before, a group would have to set up a massive amount of computing power in order to take it over, but now, taking over or disrupting Bitcoin is within the reach of non-technical entities like criminal organizations and the CIA. E.g., all the CIA has to do is threaten a few people and say "Insert this code so we can freeze the transactions of $VILLAIN_OF_THE_MONTH at any time." There's many more possibilities now.
FromTheMountain 12y ago
"Because some men aren't looking for anything logical, like money. They can't be bought, bullied, reasoned, or negotiated with. Some men just want to watch the world burn."
dragonwriter 12y ago
There's obvious cases where this is clearly false, such as where the greedy attacker has a greater reward outside of and negatively impacted by the bitcoin ecosystem. Capturing most of the rewards of the bitcoin ecosystem may then be worth less than preventing the bitcoin ecosystem from damaging the actors other interests.

by sktrdie 12y ago

kolev 12y ago

Like most Americans, you think it's all about money.

jsmthrowaway 12y ago
Although this is the weirdest, most out-of-place comment I have seen in a while, my life has taught me that "it's all about money" is the safest position to take in almost any scenario. That is potentially a product of our cultural and economic structure, but I have observed it to be true worldwide; I don't think we are wrong in general.
- serf 12y ago
  I think that it's a correct position now, but probably temporary in some sense. We didn't start with a cash system, and we may not end up with one, but for this moment in time it's a useful way to measure value/wealth. Ideally one would think "it's all about happiness" would be the goal, not a measure of asset worth, but rather contentedness perhaps? It doesn't take much thinking to imagine why we can't function in that way, however.
- conectorx 12y ago
  Just because money seems to be the most tangible thing in life it does not apply to the world. Some people value more love, health or ideals than money. Those people are quite rare to find, but they exist either unknown or known (such as Jesus, Hitler or El Che).
- kolev 12y ago
  I feel sorry for you then. First, you can't understand what I meant, and, second, the basic life lesson is that money can't make you happy and feel accomplished (unless you're too primitive), but the lack of it, agreed, can definitely make you unhappy, so, it's not about hoarding as much dollar signs as possible, but it's about having enough not get unhappy and I think most of us here don't have the issue that most people around the globe have nowadays - I'm sure we're in the top 5% globally in terms of income. The whole vicious circle of greed never has a happy ending. In most cases, the inability to be happy is a mental problem, which separates the miserable mass from the blissful few. Don't get me wrong, I have this condition as well, but I've acknowledged my issues and I'm working to address them. All the wisdom of the ages can be compressed in just two words: "memento mori" or in the more accessible form for the masses: "carpe diem". Anyway, outside of the basic well-being, real happiness is helping our civilization advance a step ahead. An Instagram can make you more money than SpaceX, for example, but launching which will make you happier and more accomplished? Which one will put your name in the history books and leave no doubt that your life was meaningful.
angersock 12y ago
Care to elaborate on this?
- kolev 12y ago
  People can decide to do an attack on Bitcoin for reasons other than money: fun, fame, politics, cyberterrorism, etc. Although money is everything today, it won't be tomorrow if we really want to be something meaningful happening in this civilization. The current order does not foster higher values that have no economical value.
  - ekm2 12y ago
    I do not understand why kolev is being downvoted.Is it so hard for techies to get that there are people with motives other than money?Think different.
    - kolev 12y ago
      Often people don't like the truth in their face. :) I'm sure most of the richest techies didn't have money as their primary driver. Money always comes as a bonus for a job well done.

zorbo 12y ago

The whole Game Theory element the bitcoiners keep throwing around surprises me the most. It's not as in you can apply game theory like that in practice. It also assumes rational players. People are anything but rational. Game theory works in numbers, but not on an individual level like that. Besides, there are plenty of profitable avenues if you control 51%.

eatitraw 12y ago
> It also assumes rational players. All models are wrong, but some are useful. What is the chance that there is an irrational player that spends a lot of money only to destroy bitcoin? This kind of player has to be politically motivated, not just simply irrational. > Besides, there are plenty of profitable avenues if you control 51% Like what? Basically you can do a few things: 1) Mine all the current coins 2) Double-spend 3) Not confirm any transactions All of them are harmful to the network. However, given that it is not an actual single entity that controls 51%, I wouldn't be worried much about anything except 1)
- TheLoneWolfling 12y ago
  4) Only confirm transactions that give you large transaction fees, and disallow all others Etc, etc.
- KingMob 12y ago
  Game theory is not even a useful model here. There are plenty of rational players who would desire the downfall of Bitcoin. The game theorists assume at the outset that everyone involved's primary financial interest is in a valid working Bitcoin network. However, banks and Western Union would not desire competitors for international currency transfer. Governments may not want currencies they can't control. The Russian mafia may want to exploit it for short-term gain or launder money. And now that there's a single pool with >51% of the CPU power, the difficulty of a hostile takeover just went way, way down. Before, a group would have to set up a massive amount of computing power in order to take it over, but now, taking over or disrupting Bitcoin is within the reach of non-technical entities like criminal organizations and the CIA. E.g., all the CIA has to do is threaten a few people and say "Insert this code so we can freeze the transactions of $VILLAIN_OF_THE_MONTH at any time." There's many more possibilities now.

FromTheMountain 12y ago

"Because some men aren't looking for anything logical, like money. They can't be bought, bullied, reasoned, or negotiated with. Some men just want to watch the world burn."

dragonwriter 12y ago

There's obvious cases where this is clearly false, such as where the greedy attacker has a greater reward outside of and negatively impacted by the bitcoin ecosystem. Capturing most of the rewards of the bitcoin ecosystem may then be worth less than preventing the bitcoin ecosystem from damaging the actors other interests.