Topic: Changes to the Alogrithm Prohibited or disputed? - page 4. (Read 5291 times)

Yes, but Bitcoin will be permanently damaged by by removing the trust we have in the system from such an attack.


Again you seem to be ignoring that a disgruntled employee or outside hacker attacking a large mining pool without a large amount of resources can attack the network.

You seem to be focusing on PoS as well which isn't exactly what the paper is talking about.

To me that's only a couple of a percent chance of being personally affected if you happened to be transferring coin at the time of the attack. Then when it's noticed happening, we point dual Gavins at it and pull the trigger, 48 hour fix even if attacker paid someone to get them drunk at a conference the night before.

We could use some more layers of armor plating, but not sure that switching POW would do anything than expose a whole new set of vulnerabilities, there's a couple of theoretical attacks that require substantial resources and planning. POS seems to presume rational self interest or altruism at a very low basic level, with the POW it's enforced at low levels no way out of it or round it, and it's ONLY when a large amount of resources and planning has been achieved that you can possibly do anything else, at which point everybody is watching you like a hawk. With POS, it seems more like you can 5th column it gradually.

I am not so much concerned about the 2-3 double spends an attacker commits as being the principle threat in itself , but the damage to the reputation and perception which would destroy the trust in Bitcoin for years to come. Mtgox was bad enough and didn't even involve the protocol itself!

The same can be said about the damage done to Bitcoins perception from the "wasted" (not my opinion but others) use of electricity and ASIC's which quickly become worthless.

Satoshi is a genius, Bitcoin is wonderful, but lets not kid ourselves Bitcoin isn't perfect and needs to mature.

Yah yah, some criminal mastermind can skim a few coins maybe with temporary contrived situations. If you really really want to permanently PWN the network you'll need a solid 51% thoroughly controlled, not some handshake deal with a pool that will chicken out as soon as they see the price dive.

You seem to be under the impression that a double spend attack requires a 51% hash rate which is fallacious.

You seem to ignore the risks of centralized pools being targeted by hackers or insiders temporarily attacking the network before enough miners flee.

You seem to be ignoring the fact that many large mining pools own a great deal of their equipment that ultimately they control and the cloud mining clients are powerless to revoke their hashing power in the event of an attack.  

Some homework for you good sir:  https://bitcoil.co.il/Doublespend.pdf

How much harder would you like it to be? If you were going to attack it out of left field with all new up to the minute hardware, you'd need to add more than 100% of the current network hash, and the power facilities of about 2 of these http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utah_Data_Center or about 1 of these http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Nimitz_%28CVN-68%29

edit: clarity, math error
re-edit: no right first time
re-re-edit: srsly FFS I can't count zeros... last time...

Well the thing is that people can fork Bitcoin to create their own altcoin whenever they want (Bitcoin is open source and anyone can copy/edit it). I think the OP is suggesting certain rules in which that would say whenever certain things are changed about Bitcoin, it will no longer be considered bitcoin anymore.

IMO, he coded it as best he knew how, but it's the vision, the economics and the math I think should remain set in stone. I believe he put much more substantial thought, research and effort into the parameters involved, and they should not be idly changed. 21M coins, 4 year block halving, POW, all things that were not just picked out of thin air.

I really like the open minded attitude.

For me, I'm not too concerned with centralization or energy.

I would however be interested in discovering if some modifcations
could be made to Bitcoin to make 51% attacks more difficult.

If that is what he is suggesting than it is odd statement to make as it is trivial to design an algorithm which forces or encourages decentralization, even with PoS. What is tricky is combining the right security and incentives as well into the consensus mechanism.

I.E.. having Bitcoin incorporate a hybrid PoW /TaPoS algo where either some of the transaction fees or mining rewards aren paid to full nodes/or p2p miners would both encourage decentralization and make Bitcoin more robust.

I already have some concerns with Vitalik's proposal and am adding more concerns as I review it further but would like to hear more specific concerns rather than knee jerk reactions and generalizations(not coming from you BTW)

It is indeed possible that PoW is superior to everything else and Satoshi got it right the first time. What I find interesting and concerning is that many people aren't even willing to test or study new consensus designs. I have a long history of attacking PoS and many alts in general and am making a very reasonable suggestion of entertaining an idea and studying Vitalik's proposals followed by a very conservative approach of incorporating this algo into an alt or sidechain so it can be tested over the course of years before even thinking about discussing a hardfork and this is the reaction I get.

There appears to be a sense of protectionism, reverence and faith towards Satoshi's original code, which is silly because most of his code has already been thrown out or changed.

i think he's saying centralization is inevitable with most kinds of PoS.

I have been highly critical of PoS in the past where large stakeholders are rewarded based upon forging unfairly benefiting the wealthy. This has nothing to do with the conversation though as I have already clearly expressed a prohibition upon any changes that increased centralization and rewarding the largest stakeholders for doing nothing would not only lead to more centralization but present security risks to Bitcoin.

The algo can be designed where the largest stakeholders don't unfairly benefit from sitting on their bag quite easily.



What does this even mean?

I noticed the op posted this in a section where gmaxwell is not a mod.....yet his monkey still got spanked

Edit for typo.

Yup!
Let the kings compete for control, while people compete for profit.
Seems pretty balanced and fair to me. This way no one gets bored and turns to evil

The law of conservation of energy would make sure that no energy is "wasted" in the process, just transformed.

This is a REALLY good point.  Even if PoS could "save energy",
do we really that kind of system?

This is a salient point as one must be fair to all investors and existing businesses who have bet on PoW with capital. I believe that if it is wise one could easily create a compromise where miners and asic manufacturers benefit from any changes.

PoW allows competition for control to stay an open game for as long as innovation happens (indefinitely).

PoS would eventually concentrate control to a group of major stakeholders and then no amount of innovation will be able to change that. If it's not immediate, then it's the end game of this model.

If you want Bitcoin to bring change, stop thinking profit, think control, think long term.

not so sure about that because someone can always create new transactions and thus new combinations... and in this way they can compute different outcomes...off to bed ....later :-)

Extra computing power doesn't help under these circumstance as we are dealing with "virtual miners" using a unique digital asset to create limited "virtual computing power" that cannot be recreated outside the system.

The truthcoin article made some good points but was misleading in suggesting that the amount of "wasted resources" correlates with the quality of security. Security is not directly correlated to wasted resources and only indirectly related.

I don't really know to be honest, and I suppose it would depend on the specific PoS implementation...
but essentially, its back to the NaS problem of people preparing multiple chains.   The only difference
is that the deposits prevent you from broadcasting them all immediately...but miners could still
spend extra resources and go "outside" the intended system (in a similar way that selfish mining
can happen in Bitcoin outside the intended methodology)..and when that happens, people start spending
extra resources (computing power).

I don't know under what circumstances this would/could happen or not, just putting it
out there as a possible reason why there might ultimately be no efficiency win -- and this
is what the truthcoin article is saying as well.