Topic: Any realistic risks on price decrease/hashrate decrease? (Read 575 times)

@d5000
Here is my thoughts about a destructive irrational attack against bitcoin:
1- A destructive attack against bitcoin is unlikely to happen but is more possible when hashrate drops significantly because of price falling deep. it is theoretically possible for governments (US, China) to buy cheap retired ASICS and attack the network just to prove some political agenda.

2- If hypothetically bitcoin was gpu mined, a no more profitable mining situation is more tolerable for gpu owners as they are still usable for game, rendering, ML, ... applications. Dump happens but not to the extents that ASICs would be dumped.

3- GPUs have more uniform distribution across the planet and have a lot more inertia than ASICS. It is much harder to have a secret GPU  manufacturing and preparation phase unlike ASICs because they use high quality RAM which is a rare global resource actively monitored by heterogeneous stakeholders all around the world. It is very unlikely for an adversary to compete with the rest of the planet in terms of equipment.

4- Technological improvements does not linearly increase gpu hashing performance because they need to improve memory unit as well and it is already pushed to its edges of optimization and is not expected to experience sharp developments in foreseeable future.

5- In my proposal, we will never eliminate SHA256 instead we gradually decrease its weight in an scheduled time table, when it comes to emergency, it would be easy to postpone or expedite the process properly.

I don't know if I understand you correctly, but doesn't that confirm the danger of a malicious GPU attack? If nobody mines with the newest GPUs, then the attacker has time to wait until GPUs are cheap, start to buy them, and start an attack some months later. That's why in an anterior post I wrote that it's maybe better to change to an alternative Asic-friendly algorithm instead of a GPU/CPU algo.

Yes, I read it. The problem I pointed out is exclusive to short-term "emergency" changes. Unfortunately, after a gradual transition to a new algorithm, the risk for a need for an "emergency exit to another algo" does not disappear completely. What disappears, however, is the dependency on major ASIC manufacturers - and that could be positive, as it's not entirely clear if big players like Bitmain will stay honest, and if not, Antbleed may be a danger.

For now, I (cautiously) support your idea of a gradual change to a ProgPoW-like algo, but it needs more research, I think.

In a "fast emergency algo change" scenario, the problem is the first phase after the hardfork when hashrate is low - as GPUs are standard hardware their power could even be rented more easily than current "cloud mining" power.  I guess that for an entity having attacked the (ASIC-secured) Bitcoin successfully in a "destructive" fashion, the additional cost for the attacker in this first GPU phase should be relatively low.

By miners you mean pools, right? And I got a solution for getting rid of pools. 

Whose fault is what? Ignoring ever changing environment and the threats for bitcoin?
I guess people who resist change because they have "invested" too much and spread FUD about serious improvements in bitcoin, no matter how critical would be the situation, they think 'short' about bitcoin and guess what, they are losing even more because of their stupidity.

By the way, how is it possible to call the same post as an act of trolling when it is merited by two respected forum member besides its absolute relevance to the topic and the discussion. Your vanity post looks to be more adequate for such a label!

But what made you believe that such a proposal will not be contentious, or be supported by the miners? Like franky1 said, miners are also part of the Bitcoin community.


Because it would be contentious.


Whose fault is it? You must be trolling.

New generations of gpus take too long to be introduced and commercially justifiable for mining, typically they start with very high prices, more attractive for game enthusiasts. The time window would be large enough to wait for other socioeconomic and political factors to help bitcoin for surviving brutal actions.

1) It is why I'm proposing a hybrid dual algorithm fork, right now. Please refer to my previous post above thread.

2) Being prepared for both ASIC and GPU dominance is more costly, it is not an ultimate solution, I do agree but it de-incentivizes such an attack even more. Although governments have huge resources available they need to justify their actions somehow, somewhen.

Well, the attacker has a lot of time to buy the equipment. While the time slot is not infinitely long because of new hardware generations, I guess GPUs are a tool with massive enough production to give the attacker a real possibility to succeed in buying enough units.

But I agree with your other statement:


... and so I also agree that even a destructive attack is very unlikely. It's not more likely than a massive crash in fiat currencies or other assets. Yep, I agree that Bitcoin is secure - and the recent price crash hasn't changed anything about that.

Regarding a hypothetical hash algorithm change: There are two problems in an emergency situation (colluding SHA256-Miners attacking the network continuously, and we need another algo to stop it):
1) the change needs to be carried out fastly (we don't have the time for a smooth transition, as otherwise miners would have, probably, ways to interfere in the transition period)
2) the attackers could have prepared for the change. So maybe they're already hoarding GPUs to attack the nascent (and thus relatively unsecure) Asic-unfriendly coin.
If this situation emerges, Bitcoin could have a hard time - I don't see convincing solutions for this scenario. Maybe the Bitcoin devs could choose a random algorithm from a group of candidates, to prevent a fast GPU attack? (I think I remember a discussion about that topic in another thread related to the Segwit change).

this is what I have tweeted about the future of crypto-currencies and their immediate need to CHANGE:

"it is not the most intellectual of the species that survives; it is not the strongest that survives; but the species that survives is the one that is able best to adapt and adjust to the changing environment in which it finds itself -- Professor Darwin"



P.S.:

sometimes that people talk about the huge hash power of bitcoin and call it STRONG, I automatically recall this quote from Professor Darwin..

it was me who proposed this in few contexts, not in a dedicated topic tho. For instance, discussing Chinese pools/ASIC manufacturers 50%+1 threats in a topic started by myself:

Unfortunately, I didn't receive enough support for it. Apparently people are busy trading bitcoin rather than developing it, the true reason behind bitcoin recent fall, imo.

I seem to remember proposals of doing a gradual shift from SHA-256 to whatever hash Bitcoin would use next, precisely as to avoid (or at least alleviate) this issue, however I can't find the respective threads right now. IIRC this would include a transitional period of hybrid mining. AFAIK these proposals haven't been discussed in earnest though and I'm not quite sure about their viability.



I doubt that "HW people" would say that, given that you emulate hardware using software, not the other way round

Impossible, people who say this are SW people who don't understand HW, the HW people have already said, "No matter how difficult you make your algo or how much memory it uses, we will emulate that algo on an ASIC".

Thus at this point making an ASIC resistant algo "POW" is just another example of retardation in the bitcoin (SW) peoples narrative world-view.

There is NO algo on earth that BITMAIN can't put on an ASIC.

I just don't see a reduction, here's why.

I get daily bs from bitmain about $100 s-9's, they can't even give them away,

So people buy them plug them in, and use them as space-heaters, now as normal 'miners for profit' pull the plug, these people who don't care, don't even notice that their s-9 is calling home and finding btc for bitmain, and maybe even splitting a nano-profit for our guy in the cold chinese flat. Ignoring the problem that an s-9 sounds like a jet engine, but I'm sure somebody will resolve this problem.

Thus yes, miners are dropping out, but these home heater miners will continue to be deployed, because people have to pay for space-heat, might as well toss in a lottery ticket and the chinese love this shit,

OK, compeche?

But in a realistic scenario, how can Bitcoin hard fork to a new POW algorithm, with consensus, if what it will do is amputate the network of full nodes and hashing power? It will reduce the network's security by a lot.

The proposal of the idea itself is already stupid, unless the mining cartel started to censor transactions.

@d5000
Your point about 'destructive attacker" being capable of buying/hiring commodity computing devices is correct but ProgPow for instance is gpu friendly and gpus are rare enough to make it very hard for the attacker and interestingly they are far more distributed than ASICs.

I don't think there could be any solution for such an attack other than making it harder and more expensive to be carried out.

Now let's rethink our hypothetical destructive attack a bit more:
As of now, we have succeeded to make it really expensive for the attacker and still there is a chance for him to take the bid and commit such an attack, but why? I would suggest that we are speaking of a situation in which we have bitcoin as a serious financial device with secondary socio economic and political side effects like jeopardizing establishment in financial sector like central banks whatsoever.

Actually I think it is a good assumption to make that we won't face such an attack unless bitcoin is adopted like 100 times more. But more adoption is not feasible without higher prices and it implies a network with an order of magnitude higher hash power, hence orders of magnitude higher attack costs. I'm less concerned  as far as it is about destructive/irrational attacks to bitcoin, if not being 100% convinced about my security.

I realized that on the positive side: most competent miners plan ahead, if not all of them, so they should be ready to mine at a loss for a long time, speculating that the price will go up in the future. A lot of them have done this in the past with great results, and there's no reason bitcoin will not go to ATH again since the fundamentals are the same as always, this is just fiat price manipulation as we have seen every 3 years + FOMO.

Also ASIC prices should go down if many miners start quitting as they would be panicking wanting to get rid of all their gear as they would think it would become worthless, so someone else out there would see an opportunity to get these cheap ASICs and start mining.

I think the risk would only be if there was a massive and sudden drop of hashrate, but we have so much hashrate that the losses we've seen don't matter that much.

@aliashraf: There's one variant of the "destructive attack" that could worry me:

If Bitcoin changed to an ASIC-unfriendly algorithm (like ProgPoW, where ASICs are only two times more efficient than CPU/GPUs, if I remember correctly), then the "destructive attacker" could simply buy standard computing equipment, if he has the funds to buy the necessary hashrate. The "PoW change" option then would become extremely difficult, as if we changed back to an ASIC-friendly algorithm, at the start there wouldn't be any ASICs available - so the attacker had still time to continue his attack with standard computing equipment.

So one could even argue that for Bitcoin it's better not to change to an ASIC-unfriendly algorithm, but to an algorithm suitable for differently constructed ASICs (Scrypt, for example?). I'm not totally sure about that, though.

@GaPR: I don't really understand your answer to my post ...

I do see the following potential danger in a (significantly) decreasing hashrate:

• Larger miners/pools stop mining due to lower prices
• Mining hardware is still around, also if not used to mine Bitcoin
• Assume a large miner that has had enough of it and wants an exit
• Due to decreased hashrate it is possible that this miner alone (or e.g. 2 miners combined) has enough hashing power for a 51% attack
• With a successful 51% Attack the miner can reverse TXs
• The miner sells all his bitcoin to some investor
• Reverses the TX
• Sells again to another investor
• Reverses the TX
• ...

Of course, the iterated selling will be for decreasing prices, but since the miner wants to exit he couldn't care less. At the end the miner will have made the best possible exit while trust in Bitcoin will be gone.