Topic: Could China (or similar) take control of Bitcoin? - page 3. (Read 1593 times)

More FUD from the Ripple CEO... or should I say the new Ripple CEO. God what is wrong with those people? If they think that their shitcoin is better than Bitcoin then why don't they try making everyone use it?

---

The short answer is that if an entity ever came close to controlling over 50% of the hash rate, the miners would disconnect from their pool and join another. Unless it is a pool-less miner like Foundry. How do they have money to buy all those miners anyway? Venture capitalists?

The algorithm that the Bitcoin network uses was written by satoshi and remains unaltered.  Me and you cannot modify it, while remaining in the network.  While we have the freedom to alter it, such actions would promptly lead to their expulsion from the network, effectively creating another altcoin. 


This doesn't answer why they aren't doing it. 


I have NOWHERE stated the existence of a central authority that dictates rules.  My argument supports the absence of such authority, it's just you who doesn't get it.  People are free to write and employ software of their preference.  Regardless of the amount of hashrate voting for a consensus rule, it doesn't change reality.  If 51% of the hashrate favors a significant change, such as modifying the 21 million rule, it merely results in the entity no longer being part of the Bitcoin network.  This isn't an imposition by an authority; it's the organic consequence of decentralized nodes ceasing to interact among themselves. 


If the majority of miners had shifted to Bitcoin Cash, then Bitcoin Cash would have become the prevailing norm.  However, this analogy differs because Bitcoin Cash solely rised the block size, a measure that had been under consideration since 2010 but was never enacted due to disagreements among developers.

Your argument presents a completely different scenario.  If Chinese nodes altered the 21 million rule to 21 trillion, opposition would arise from people like you and me, regardless of the hashrate.  It would inevitably collapse on its own, as users would refuse to adopt it. 

The rules according to whom? You? Me? Sure. The actual algorithm that the Bitcoin network uses? Not so much.


Based on the rules it enforces, just like how a Bitcoin node and a Bitcoin Cash node recognize they're operating on different protocols, even without explicit IP ports and flags, they would eventually blacklist each other.  This occurs when they send each other transactions that violate the rules specific to each network. 


So, you CANNOT explain why miners aren't tampering with the consensus rules to increase their rewards, despite the fact that they have the capability to do so.  Why would they invest billions of dollars in energy, when they could inflate their rewards at will? 

A node that imposes a 21 trillion coin cap is not running based on the original Bitcoin rules. 


Based on the rules it enforces, just like how a Bitcoin node and a Bitcoin Cash node recognize they're operating on different protocols, even without explicit IP ports and flags, they would eventually blacklist each other.  This occurs when they send each other transactions that violate the rules specific to each network. 


So, you CANNOT explain why miners aren't tampering with the consensus rules to increase their rewards, despite the fact that they have the capability to do so.  Why would they invest billions of dollars in energy, when they could inflate their rewards at will? 


It's you who creates the notion of a central authority that compels users to adhere to a specific set of rules.  I'm explaining the reality.  People have the freedom to join or leave any network they choose, and the majority of hashrate cannot hinder this.  Bitcoin Cash serves as a prime example.  If things operated as you imagine, Bitcoin Cash wouldn't exist because there wasn't a 'majority rule' that led to its creation. 

The attackers nodes are going to "run the original Bitcoin rules" as far as everybody is concerned. There would be no way, pragmatically in real time, to tell the difference between a "good" node and an "evil" node.



Non-Chinese nodes will reject transactions from Chinese nodes if they violate the rules, effectively resulting in the same outcome as being blocked for being considered 'bad'. 

By every node that runs the original Bitcoin rules. 


Non-Chinese nodes will reject transactions from Chinese nodes if they violate the rules, effectively resulting in the same outcome as being blocked for being considered 'bad'. 


You're mistaken.  Take another look at the pages I referred to earlier, you've clearly missed them.  The majority vote doesn't pertain to protocol rules but to the order of transactions.  If it were otherwise, miners could arbitrarily inflate their rewards, which isn't the case.  Ever wondered why this doesn't occur?


If the group controlling 51% of the hashrate changes the protocol rules within their nodes, they effectively detach from the network of the remaining 49%.  The 49% then becomes the new 100% of their existent network.   

"Considered" by what??

You keep inventing a central authority out of thin air.


I am NOT referring to any central authority.  It's the nodes within the current network that will refuse connections from nodes using different protocols.  What's hard to understand about that?

Nope, a node that imposes a cap of 21 trillion isn't considered a 'good' node, regardless of the amount of hashrate they possess. 


I am NOT referring to any central authority.  It's the nodes within the current network that will refuse connections from nodes using different protocols.  What's hard to understand about that?


They connect because they adhere to the same protocol.  If one of them makes even a minor alteration to the protocol within its client, it no longer remains part of their network. 


If a node from China connects to one from outside China and the Chinese node sends a transaction that's only valid according to Chinese rules, the non-Chinese node will refuse it and potentially blacklist the Chinese node. 


Lmao, they do.  It's called consensus:  https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Consensus. 


This has nothing to do with protocol rules.  If you actually read satoshi, it explains the system's defense against 51% attacks, where one exploits their hashrate to double-spend.  It doesn't have to do with altering the protocol rules of other clients.  That's impossible without their consent. 

Yep, and the way you verify a node is the work it performs. If it performs the work, it's a good node. If it doesn't, it's not. That's all the software knows.

Therefore there would be no way of telling what is a "good" node and a "bad" node. They are all just nodes, and it somebody takes over 51% of them, they win.



My friend, I'm honestly starting to wonder if you're trolling or simply lacking basic technical expertise.  Anyone can span a network; that's the essence of decentralization.  You could create "Bitcoin 2.0", and it would work perfectly well.  But, you wouldn't be able to communicate with Bitcoin nodes because you've agreed upon a different set of rules.

You shouldn't be trusting nodes to begin with.  "Don't trust, verify" is the principle.  Chinese and non-Chinese nodes won't communicate, much like how Bitcoin Cash nodes don't interact with Bitcoin nodes.  They adhere to different protocols.


My friend, I'm honestly starting to wonder if you're trolling or simply lacking basic technical expertise.  Anyone can span a network; that's the essence of decentralization.  You could create "Bitcoin 2.0", and it would work perfectly well.  But, you wouldn't be able to communicate with Bitcoin nodes because you've agreed upon a different set of rules.


And I'm clarifying for another time:  They cannot force us to follow their new rules.  Their authority (in Proof-of-Work) extends only to determining the order of transactions.  If they were to alter the rules, they would no longer be part of the Bitcoin network.  This would result in a chain split, with Bitcoin holders having two separate "Bitcoin" networks.  While Chinese holders might prefer their Chinese network, they cannot compel the rest of the world to adhere to their lead.  

Allow me to illustrate it this way:  If the CCP mandated their miners to enforce a new cap of 21 trillion BTC, the rest of the world would lose all Chinese hashrate, as Chinese miners would be working on a separate network.  

Yes, but how would you know which one is which? A node is a node. You couldn't just say, "I trust those node but not these nodes". There is no notion of known identity in the Bitcoin network, which is the whole point.

Again, you simply don't seem to understand the implications of a decentralized network. There is no "middle". There is no "community" that "decides".

And the situation with Bitcoin Cash was not even remotely comparable.



It is completely possible to view which node supports the Chinese rules.