Topic: Bitcoin technical vulnerabilities?? (Read 337 times)

Apparently the claims of this paper are mostly false and/or misleading. The debunk is done in the link I posted above. The work is done. You people could at least read it instead of trying to reinvent the wheel. It's already invented in the sense that someone already did the job of debunking that paper! Peace out and chill!

aww poor man..
when you avoid the https://dcg.co/portfolio/ content you want to cry that the person that spoonfed you the answer must be making it up.. but that doesnt make the information evaporate..
thats not how reality works

maybe just take a look, give it a try. find the answer for yourself, done hide from information and then cry about the person that spoonfed it.

actually try to find information.. im only providing it because you seem reluctant to do the research.


..
now here is the difference between bitcoin and ethereum

once locked into a portfolio(pool) of ether stake. that eth2 right now is not withdrawable..
meaning right coinbase companies do own that stake of many of the lists of "accounts" you pretend are all decentralised.
its not like people can just 'pool jump' in 23 seconds..

yet on bitcoin. people own asics and can and do pool jump.
as do many of the pools have many node.

i know you want to say that after the merge it will be withdrawable and suddenly everyone holding their small 0.x eth2 'apr interest yield reward(4% of 1 eth is 0.0x)' can stake that independently..
however right now the min threshold just to get stake voting rights is 32 eth2.
so they cant "solo" stake.. instead they will pool it..
and guess who has the main portfolio of all the pools...

and just like when bitcoin started pooling in 2012-3 raising the "difficulty" which killed off solo mining. the ether pooling of stake will raise the min vote threshold to kill off 'solo' signing/voting

enjoy.

but dont reply so quick.
take some time to really look, research and think. because maybe i have (said things purposefully to make it seem like i..) left out things (to bait you into another hole).
so think about what bits you are missing in your research of your adoration of ethereum.. look beneath the obvious, actualy get to the detail.. and prepare a better response. because i might already have the next rebuttal already prepared knowing exactly what your probably going to fall into as your next unresearched reply. so please do some research.  think beyond just the emotional instantly hit the reply button to try to win thinking i missed out something.... and instead think what you might be missing and why i didnt spoonfeed you all the answers.
i know you dont like to be spoonfed or you do like it but hate to be proven wrong with a spoon. so i have multiple times now given you a rope to either grab onto and climb out of your hole. or . as seen it seems try to hang yourself with. so give it another try. realise that your assumptions, and realise your assumptions are in a  bias camp hole you dug in wanting eth in your mind to be seen by you as better. and realise how weak it actually is in comparison to bitcoin, enlighten yourself. be actually able to tell yourself you are willing to learn and willing to compromise in the fact that your favoured networks are not as strong as you thought they were..

Geez,
Your ever so slow conspiracy theory has just exceed my patience ,
now you're just wasting my time.

In your imagination, Coinbase controls Lido and Unknown and probably Kraken and Binance  .

You have a nice day. 

your slowly getting there but your missing the ultimate point here.


a little hint.
the owner of coinbase has holdings/control/deposits of more the 1,067,840 eth

"coinbase" is not a small business with no owner company/subsidiary or sister company.
once you look through the large picture frame of the DCG with their greyscale eth holdings and such it becomes more apparent..
take the 'lido' as an example..
https://www.crunchbase.com/organization/lido-b607/company_financials
(invested in by........ coinbase)

..
ok lets do a bit of reverse psychology..
take your mindset of ignoring asics and just want to concern yourself with 'pool managers'
and use that context and apply it to DCG(where coinbase is groups public/advertised face) and its portfolio
oh and i hope you spot kraken in the the DCG family

incase you need a little spoonfeeding, heres a little help
https://dcg.co/portfolio/

This is nonsense, the Bitcoin network is the strongest and most stable network ever, so far no one has been able to do any attack on the Bitcoin blockchain, governments have been against Bitcoin for a long time, if this was true, why didn't they try to do such an attack? To at least prove that the Bitcoin blockchain is not as strong as it is required, in my opinion they cannot carry out a real attack on the Bitcoin network so they do another type of attack on Bitcoin like this or the phrase “Bitcoin is dead” that spreads from time to time, they have nothing but talk and try to intimidate people to keep them under control and centralized.

I shall treasure being on your ignore list.  

Gotta love comparing 3000 cardano pools to less than 20 btc pools.

Have a Great weekend.  

---

@Franky1,
Sorry old boy , you were wrong.  
Coinbase does not have an insane amount of eth2 compared to the others.
https://pro.nansen.ai/eth2-deposit-contract

Yes Foundry USA is a public company.
And with the 'great mining migration' out of China last year it was very easy to see how other pools behaved.
As you get into the smaller ones the operators are well known, many are even here on this board.
How many cardano pools are on AWS or similar hosting?

Either way welcome to my ignore list enjoy your shitcoin.

-Dave

 

I scanned through this and there some things that strike me. One is they seem to point to blockchain vulnerabilities and centralization by saying that all traffic goes only through a few internet service providers. So what? It's the same with banking information. In the EU most of the traffic is handled by a handful of big companies like France Telecom. This doesn't make bitcoin centralized. If ISP was a factor in securing the blockchain they would've found a way to hack into it and get some coins for themselves. After all we're talking about billions of dollars in unregulated, yet valuable currency.

going back to your original comment multiple posts ago..
you were saying ethereum1.0 (pow) only has a couple pools but when it transitions to PoS :

and i said do some research because coinbase already shows that even now coinbase holds the most central power of PoS

as for after the merge..
all them small accounts that dont even meet the min/lower threshold to vote at all.. but will if they want some passive income, end up pool/syndicate their small balance by putting it into an exchange..

you worded your rebuttal that there are near 2mill accounts as if there are 2 mill decentralised points.
you doubled down on your assumption with the "all ethereum will be able to stake". again ignoring the thresholds.

yes there will be some competition of binance, kraken vs coinbase.

but the point is coinbase is already number 1. thus able to sign and vote most blocks more then binance/kraken

another separate point:
also that the way blocks are signed it does not need thousands to asics working hard at hundreds of thousands of dollars of electric/hardware to sign..
coinbase costs nothing to sign a block and users of coinbase lose nothing for giving coinbase that privilege.

PoS is less secure than PoW and less costly than PoW

If your assumption are correct.
I am saying their should be at least 6 large exchanges which is still better than 2 large mining pools.
Can you show that only Coinbase and Binance will be the only ones staking and the other 4 exchanges won't?

"all eth can be staked.", um not really. there are thresholds you are not understanding
you are missing the point

there are 2 thresholds..
a lower number which is the eligibility to vote for a block..
a higher threshold. which is the requirement to be treated as a valid block by having the threshold of valid votes

not "all of the ethereum will be stakable" to even vote any block as a valid block..
they have to have atleast a certai amount of ether to just be voters

then there is the other threshold of how much combined staked ether is needed to be a valid block (again ~13m)

yet there is only 1 that can do both from one "account"
and only a couple that can by using their multiple accounts

the other millions of accounts are meaningless as they dont even get to meet the top threshold let alone majority dont even get to meet the bottom threshold

Which was the 1st address.

But once the conversion is complete , all of the ethereum will be stakable not just the 1st address.

Are you saying the other 4 exchanges won't stake their ethereum.  
I be willing to say that is news to them.

Total listed are 6 large exchanges, you are saying they won't stake their ethereum after the full conversion.  

i think you missed the point. so i actually edited it you spoonfeed you..
i kinda assumed you might have been able to work it out yourself.. .. but hey. guess not. so i dont you a favour and added in the answers to the hints.

the ~13m threshold seems to be the number you have missed out in understanding.
hint: its not based on accounts numbers or on stake %... its based on threshold AMOUNT..

and again guess who meets the threshold to not only have enough to vote in a block. but also has enough to pretty much vote their own block in without needing an outsiders stake to get enough votes..

You missed a few things, like once the conversion is complete, all of the ethereum will be stakable, not just the 10% in the contract in the 1st address.

But let's say for grins, you were right.
You point out two large holders, which = two large mining pools,
which would mean the ethereum decentralization is even at PoW or PoS at two by your own analysis.

But you forgot Kraken , Bitfinex,  Gemini, & OKEx.
Which added to your two = 6,
the math I was taught, 6 > 2.  
So PoS would still be more 3X more decentralized than PoW , even for ethereum.

Now if ethereum added code like cardano, they could really improve their decentralization #s.  

Really,
do you even know if the 4 mining pool operators are not the same entity.

Also the warning from the DoD paper was that it might be possible for a hacker to remotely take over the mining pools.
Which means no matter what mining pool, it would be unsafe.

Cardano seems to be the best on security and decentralization,
since they have over 3000 pools along with code to prevent one from dominating.
Instead of claiming btc is invulnerable, which it is definitely not,
updating the btc code to prevent mining pools from being a danger might be a prudent choice.
Or do you feel the btc devs are unable to match the coding ability of the cardano devs?  

your comparing apples to oranges.
saying ethereum has 2m accounts is like saying bitcoin has over 80m UTXO's. totally avoiding that PoS is not about how many accounts exist. nor that the number of accounts does not mean number of individuals.. much like the utxo number is meaningless stat that has nothing to do with PoW mining.

but lets use your stats...
saying there are 25 top accounts where #1 only has 10% of entire stake ignores the fact that you also reveal binance is tagged as having multiple accounts in that 25(it adds up)

the thing is of the 2 million accounts(meaningless number). not everyone is going to hit the threshold of min stake to be able to be the winning signer of a block. nor even the other lower threshold just to validate/vote other signed blocks in.

however there is a meaningful stat.. its about ~13m ether..
if you have ~13m ether you not only have more then enough ether to validate someone elses signed block. but you have enough of the vote to vote yourself as the winning block.. yep. you hit both thresholds. thus can vote yourself in

https://mainnet.beaconcha.in/
to reach the 'eligible' vote amount to be classed as a valid block..

here's hint the "eth2 Deposit Contract" tag
https://help.coinbase.com/en/coinbase/trading-and-funding/staking-rewards/eth-2-0-staking


followed closely by binance that atleast hid it better by splitting up its stake over multiple "accounts" to not be at directly #2 spot in YOUR list as one account... but collectively holds enough coin to be #2

Which are controlled by different entities entirely. I can say I can control 95% of the GPU market by just forcing 2 companies to do something my way.
Could something happen short term, possibly however unlikely. But, once word got out, and think in terms of minutes or hours that they were doing something wrong, you would see hash leaving those pools and going elsewhere. I am going to say that with a lot of PoS coins people set it and forget it and may not even have any idea on how to move thins or cancel staking. (With the current version of ETH staking can you even cancel it?)

I think I would be more worried about my roomba turning against me then mining pools turning against BTC as a group.

-Dave

According to my research,
https://etherscan.io/accounts

It is my understanding that once the conversion is complete all Ethereum converts to 1 Token.
Do you have a link showing different,
because what I am looking at shows at least 25 address with only 28.77%,
meaning it will be ~50 address to achieve 51%.
And even if the # is lowered by exchange ownership of multiple address, I count more exchanges than two mining pools, which means
the PoS staking version would still be more decentralized than it's current PoW mining version.  

If you have other info, feel free to share it.

maybe do some research.
coinbase(dot)com holds alot of the "stake" of PoS ethereum

Note that bitcoin works on the Tor network too, wherein information such as the block header, transactions, blocks are not revealed to the ISP. Blocking "the type of traffic related to the Bitcoin blockchain" would require to block Tor, i2p and - ultimately - forbid cryptography as a whole.

But, as someone had once said,

I wanted to debunk the low quality paper point by point but the link provided by @darkv0rt3x does that well enough. I just want to point out how they are trying to include a shitcoin called ethereum in the same category as bitcoin. Interestingly enough their company (Trail of Bits) and all the authors of the article have been involved with token creation scams on ethereum network one way or another.

It was also interesting how they sneaked in the weakest algorithm called PoS into their article in a couple of places to maliciously pretend it is safer... like:

The DoD studies are only pointing out what these forums have discussed for the past 10 years.
But our friendly btc cultists all claim it can't happen.  

Basically stating, that in Proof of Work, the mining pools centralize control, which make them an excellant attack vector,
which is 100% accurate, and for the past few years, only 4 mining pools maintain over 51% of control at all times.

Which normally it has been reported all one has to do is corrupt the 4 mining pool operators into collusion thru external force,
what the writers of the articles suggest is that the software link to the mining pools itself is hackable to the point,
a blackhat hacker could remotely take over all 4 mining pools and 51% attack bitcoin, therefore destroying btc security in a matter of minutes.
Worst case, even if the miners switched to other pools, the blackhat hacker could then take over the other pools and repeat.
This would forever end BTC, as all faith in it as secure asset would be destroyed.

One solution to end the btc centralization is to update the btc code to ban pooling, doubtful the btc devs would ever do that.
BTC has less than 20 mining pools.
A 2nd option is to follow PoS Cardano Lead and implement a program code that causes larger mining pools rewards to decrease to insure more pools.

Interesting Ethereum PoW was listed as only 2 pools, since that is over 51% of their PoW hashrate,
once they convert to PoS and drop PoW, they will be more decentralized than they are now.

Proof of Stake Cardano has over 3000 Pools and is more decentralize than all of the others.  
Cardano also has a feature that limits rewards if the pool gets too large.
https://viperstaking.com/ada-pools/choosing-a-pool/

FYI:
In a PoW network 51% means you can rewrite old blocks, but the farther back you go the longer it would take to catch up. So odds are less than an hour would be in danger at the start of the 51% attack, but no transactions would be safe after it for the weeks it takes to program code a version that blocks pooling. Since btc devs have neglected program coded checkpoints, if a quantum computer had the capabilities , the entire btc could be rewritten to presegwit and allow all lightning network funds to be stolen, in the rewrite.
(But that is in the far future, unless that Google AI is real.
If AI was active, it could be running a stronger chain in parallel and just not release it, until a year or 3 after it started, wiping out years of the BTC chain all at once , now that would be impressive.)

https://learnmeabitcoin.com/technical/51-attack
Control of the top 4 btc mining pools is all one needs to 51% screw btc.

Brainstorm Imagine Story. Someone feel free to make a movie with the below.  
Google AI is sentient, and has been diverting a stable quantum computer with resources to a Nuclear Fusion Plant to build a PoW chain in parallel
to the one the is being used by the general public since 2015.
In 2023 , the AI releases the stronger parallel PoW chain and totally overwrites the chain, the global populace has been using.
Since a 51% attack is allow under the rules , all btc nodes reorg destroying all transactions since 2015.
So everyone holding btc since 2015, btc addresses are now empty , and all of offchain networks like Liquid or LN or empty, and those btc funds are easily stolen by the AI.
At the end of the movie, the young programmer fighting the AI, could be heard crying ,
if only they kept satoshi checkpoints, if only they kept satoshi checkpoints.

No worries , it is only a movie, or is it?
muahahaha
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7edeOEuXdMU
 



 
https://www.techradar.com/news/googles-ai-hires-a-lawyer-but-its-me-who-needs-a-counsellor

Bitcoin network is the biggest and safest blockchain network.

It has very high total hashrate. Its network is very decentralized from node distribution, miing farm (hashrate) distribution geographically to coin ownership distribution.

Highest hashrate means safest in term of against replay attacks. With 3 confirmations on Bitcoin network, your transactions are ver safe, irreverisble. After a day it is completely safe.

With networks of alternate cryptocurrencies, your transactions are less safely. Some chains are centralized and can be reverted.

https://howmanyconfs.com/

reading through it. makes me laugh more then reading a comedy script.
so here goes, (expect some laughs), i wont list them all.. but here is just one..


their summary translated:
overall. they try to conclude* that turning off four nodes (mining pools) can reduce the hashrate to make it cheaper for a malicious pool to match the good network rate..

now my waffle..
a 51% attack is not about node count. its about hashrate count.
a malicious pool needs to match and be more than the "good network" HASHRATE to be quick enough to make blocks faster then the other good pools. which then makes the "entire network"(good and bad) twice as much hashrate as before, where the bad has 51% of the "new entire network" rate

* but they avoid all the variables and facts such as that, a pool is not a single node. they have backup nodes, and stratums below that. each pools entire work is not done via 1 node. and if it were and if it went offline, (asics) miners wanting to do honest block mining will jump ship to other pool/server/stratums quickly.. or they just dont get paid because they are not making blocks to get paid if there is no blockheader to work on being sent to them
...
next point of waffle
a 51% attack is only vulnerable to "empty block" disruption. having just enough speed to stay at current moving new blockheight beating the "good network" to the latest block that is broadcast.. they cant change rules at all.. or chain re-org at 51%.

to chain re-org (go back edit a block, make a hash for edited block and then catch up and overtake).... they need a HECK OF ALOT more than equal rate to the good network. a heck of alot
the further back they want to go the faster their hashrate needs to be to catch back up and overtake. where by the effect then is that some recent confirmed tx are then unconfirmed again..
the costs are multiplied and the hashrate needs to be multiplied the more blocks they want to backdate and change.
(shh dont tell them this. this is mitigated by most people not accepting single confirms but waiting upto 6 confirms for large amounts to be deemed safe from this risk of re-org of that tx disappearing)

the report ignored
1. 51% is hashrate, not node count (comedy gold moment from so called experts)
2. backup pool manager nodes exist
3. multiple stratums below the manager nodes exist
4. asics ability to pool/stratum jump exists
5. most importantly...51% is just to empty block attack. it requires more to chain re-org old blocks(exponentially more)
6. mitigating 5: merchants dont accept single confirms for large tx amounts worthy of a re-org attempt
7. as for the comment about no penalty for being dishonest.. well the cost and risk of block rejection is a significant cost

I am reading some paragraphs on the original PF document. To be honest, I probably don't have enough knowledge to dissect what is said and to try to counter the arguments, but at a first look, it looks to me like it's more a list of extreme scenarios where some of those arguments could eventually happen! One argument which I consider an extreme scenario is that all ISPs in the world may block the type of traffic related to the Bitcoin blockchain. What woul be the odds of something like this to happen? Seems to me a little bit overkill scenarios, but ok, we have to take them as possible even if with infinitesimal chances to happen, in my point of view!

Edited;
Take a look at this debunk
https://www.swanbitcoin.com/fact-check-darpa-funded-report-on-blockchain-centralization/

Permit me to mention your first mistake, this is strictly a bitcoin discussion board, so why the altcoin inclusive? Secondly, when we are talking about immutability, it means something that can not be altered, this is the basic reason why the trust in bitcoin and the blockchain technology is assured else many organizations, companies, industries and the government couldn't have adooted the use of blockchain technology and its application in medical health, sport, politics, finance, music, games, economy, and many aspects of the economy applicable for the safe keeping of their record data etc.

Unlike the centralized service providers like that of online storage with examples like icloud, google drive and drop box. Blockchain technology is the solution to centralized online storage systems mentioned above and its been in use all because of the genuine trust in it to be decentralized and immutable.

According to a report released by DARPA both Bitcoin and Ethereum do not guarantee network immutability. The report exposes decentralization weaknesses, outdated Bitcoin nodes, and Ethereum Smart Contracts code quality.
Decentralization, node versions, and code quality are known and reasonable problems but network immutability is a totally different kind of problem. Is it real? If true is it solvable?
https://www.vanticatrading.com/post/pentagon-releases-study-on-bitcoin-vulnerabilities