Decentralized Security in the Blockchain

mistercoin

legendary

Activity: 1038

Merit: 1000

https://r.honeygain.me/XEDDM2B07C

Quote from: gmaxwell on January 09, 2015, 06:01:33 PM

For all I "know"- in a strong sense-- Bitstamp sold those coins to an innocent third party. (Or, if implicating Bitstamp is indeed too crazy for you: The hacker could have directly sold them to an unaware third party; and half the coins flowing there could actually be unrelated to Bitstamp.)

Be mindful of what you know, vs what you think you know. Part of the value of the system is that it minimizes importing human judgement into its operation. If it does that then there is no clean boundary, and risk analysis is much more costly.

Very true. This is an important point regarding one of the reasons Bitcoin is the way it is. Centralization, if you think about it, allows for one party, or in some cases, multiple parties, to control how something is used. As humans we are prone to making mistakes, look at the people who are wrongly put to death for crimes they did not commit. The glory of the blockchain is that it allows a certain bit of freedom from ourselves, and our judgement. When a transaction is sent, it is final, for the most part.

If Bitstamp was compromised (and there doesn't seem to be any suggestion that it wasn't) then hopefully they will take this as a lesson learned, and explore every nook of their systems for security flaws.

I'm blabbering...sorry Grin

muhrohmat

sr. member

Activity: 252

Merit: 250

we all concern bout security of our goods like every material thing we have and this digital decentralized btc its going to be secure but 100% hacked acount must be from low security in firewalls or password acesss in blockchain

Bitware

hero member

Activity: 926

Merit: 1001

weaving spiders come not here

Quote from: Delek on January 10, 2015, 01:46:41 PM

Quote from: Bitware on January 10, 2015, 12:40:37 AM

All you know is what a human at Bitstamp told you.

Who cares if it was a human, a cat or a horse? If ~100% of the network agree that https://blockchain.info/address/1L2JsXHPMYuAa9ugvHGLwkdstCPUDemNCf has 100% hacked coins, it should be possible to develop a Decentralized Security System.

I care and others care. I don't agree with a claim from a single person that a theft occurred. Others also disagree. That means that 100% of the network are not in agreement those coins are 100% hacked. What you appear to be willing to do is lock up those coins from the current owner based on one persons claim that they are stolen, without any due process for the current holder of those coins. It is not our job to police individual wallet addresses and the coins contained therein. That is an issue for the police and the courts, then they go after those involved and their assets if found guilty by a jury of their peers. The Bitcoin users, devs and the Bitcoin code are not responsible for any of that, never should be and hopefully never will be. This is part of decentralization. Take responsibility for your own coins, wallets and storage mechanisms. Should the courts rule that a theft occurred, then its their responsibility to obtain access to the wallets or take the assets of those proven to be guilty and make whole those affected. Not mine. Not yours. Not Bitcoin devs. Not the code.

Delek

full member

Activity: 157

Merit: 100

Salí para ver

Quote from: Bitware on January 10, 2015, 12:40:37 AM

All you know is what a human at Bitstamp told you.

Who cares if it was a human, a cat or a horse? If ~100% of the network agree that https://blockchain.info/address/1L2JsXHPMYuAa9ugvHGLwkdstCPUDemNCf has 100% hacked coins, it should be possible to develop a Decentralized Security System.

muhrohmat

sr. member

Activity: 252

Merit: 250

well at begining was just to state the hacking possibility of blockchain and that is decentrilized its in every wallets person the info and also blockchain soo the btc never disapers until 2113 but i mean it can be hacked like from personla info on the wallets like on line wallets of passwords and low security ones amasinlgy blockchain wallets are now more reliable i dont use but its proper for 1 to 2 btcs in there dont advise more

Bitware

hero member

Activity: 926

Merit: 1001

weaving spiders come not here

Quote from: Delek on January 09, 2015, 05:28:13 PM

I was thinking yesterday, this address:
https://blockchain.info/address/1L2JsXHPMYuAa9ugvHGLwkdstCPUDemNCf

We all know that it belongs to the Bitstamp hacker, a thief; why then, the whole network, knowing that Bitcoins are coming from a hack, can't do anything about it? Why if we all agree, the network, can't do anything against this injustice?

Crazy idea, but what if we all start to migrate to new anti-thief-nodes where, while analyzing the blockchain during a transaction and find that this address was involved, automatically reject the transfers?
Does not this would eliminate the profit of the hacker?, this will not eliminate the urge to steal bitcoins, and still maintain a decentralized, anti theft system?

I know that this will only works for BIG hacks, that the entire network knows about, but this could be done somehow or I'm missing something?

Thanks in advance.

All you know is what a human at Bitstamp told you.

Q7

sr. member

Activity: 448

Merit: 250

The problem is when it comes to consensus that is when we consider the size of the network which is too big to control. If we take exception in this address and start implementing some from control, what would happen if there is another hack similar to it and people start to make request? A person or organization needs to be held accountable for their own actions especially security.

MrTeal

legendary

Activity: 1274

Merit: 1004

Quote from: goosoodude on January 09, 2015, 10:02:00 PM

Quote from: MrTeal on January 09, 2015, 07:59:16 PM

Quote from: erre on January 09, 2015, 07:18:58 PM

Quote from: DannyHamilton on January 09, 2015, 07:15:03 PM

Quote from: erre on January 09, 2015, 07:11:14 PM

I don't think that forking bitcoin in " clean coins" and " free coins" would be a good idea for many reasons, but I don't think this would destroy bitcoin at all....just some miners switching to an alt-coin

I suppose that depends on how big of a percentage the smaller community was, and how hard each community pushed to be considered the "official bitcoin".

I would call " bitcoin" the coin with the majority (50%+1) of the hashpower. That's one of the reasons why I hate so much centralization, I know that hashes are not people, but name does not matter... I will prefer to use the original blockchain independently of the coin name

Why the majority of the hash power? The real power is the users. Ghash, Discuss Fish and Antpool could all decide they want to mine blackcoin. However if only a few hundred users move with them and everyone stays with the current client, they would essentially just be mining a very difficult altcoin.

Its not even the users directly but where they use it. Currently exchanges and merchants would be the ones determining. However, there is no way for them to reach a consensus, while miners can reach a consensus easily as there only a few.

Exchanges and merchants are users.
People who send transactions -> Users
People who confirm transactions -> Miners
That being said, if everyone decided they wanted to use the blacklisted coin and forked while Newegg kept using vanilla, I imagine there's a decent probability they'd change to the coin people are using. More likely that they'd just dump Bitcoin entirely, but that's the risk you take trying to make massive changes to the entire idea behind Bitcoin.

goosoodude

hero member

Activity: 584

Merit: 500

Quote from: MrTeal on January 09, 2015, 07:59:16 PM

Quote from: erre on January 09, 2015, 07:18:58 PM

Quote from: DannyHamilton on January 09, 2015, 07:15:03 PM

Quote from: erre on January 09, 2015, 07:11:14 PM

I don't think that forking bitcoin in " clean coins" and " free coins" would be a good idea for many reasons, but I don't think this would destroy bitcoin at all....just some miners switching to an alt-coin

I suppose that depends on how big of a percentage the smaller community was, and how hard each community pushed to be considered the "official bitcoin".

I would call " bitcoin" the coin with the majority (50%+1) of the hashpower. That's one of the reasons why I hate so much centralization, I know that hashes are not people, but name does not matter... I will prefer to use the original blockchain independently of the coin name

Why the majority of the hash power? The real power is the users. Ghash, Discuss Fish and Antpool could all decide they want to mine blackcoin. However if only a few hundred users move with them and everyone stays with the current client, they would essentially just be mining a very difficult altcoin.

Its not even the users directly but where they use it. Currently exchanges and merchants would be the ones determining. However, there is no way for them to reach a consensus, while miners can reach a consensus easily as there only a few.

MrTeal

legendary

Activity: 1274

Merit: 1004

Quote from: erre on January 09, 2015, 07:18:58 PM

Quote from: DannyHamilton on January 09, 2015, 07:15:03 PM

Quote from: erre on January 09, 2015, 07:11:14 PM

I don't think that forking bitcoin in " clean coins" and " free coins" would be a good idea for many reasons, but I don't think this would destroy bitcoin at all....just some miners switching to an alt-coin

I suppose that depends on how big of a percentage the smaller community was, and how hard each community pushed to be considered the "official bitcoin".

I would call " bitcoin" the coin with the majority (50%+1) of the hashpower. That's one of the reasons why I hate so much centralization, I know that hashes are not people, but name does not matter... I will prefer to use the original blockchain independently of the coin name

Why the majority of the hash power? The real power is the users. Ghash, Discuss Fish and Antpool could all decide they want to mine blackcoin. However if only a few hundred users move with them and everyone stays with the current client, they would essentially just be mining a very difficult altcoin.

erre

legendary

Activity: 1652

Merit: 1205

Quote from: DannyHamilton on January 09, 2015, 07:15:03 PM

Quote from: erre on January 09, 2015, 07:11:14 PM

I don't think that forking bitcoin in " clean coins" and " free coins" would be a good idea for many reasons, but I don't think this would destroy bitcoin at all....just some miners switching to an alt-coin

I suppose that depends on how big of a percentage the smaller community was, and how hard each community pushed to be considered the "official bitcoin".

I would call " bitcoin" the coin with the majority (50%+1) of the hashpower. That's one of the reasons why I hate so much centralization, I know that hashes are not people, but name does not matter... I will prefer to use the original blockchain independently of the coin name

DannyHamilton

legendary

Activity: 3416

Merit: 4658

Quote from: erre on January 09, 2015, 07:11:14 PM

I don't think that forking bitcoin in " clean coins" and " free coins" would be a good idea for many reasons, but I don't think this would destroy bitcoin at all....just some miners switching to an alt-coin

I suppose that depends on how big of a percentage the smaller community was, and how hard each community pushed to be considered the "official bitcoin".

erre

legendary

Activity: 1652

Merit: 1205

Quote from: DannyHamilton on January 09, 2015, 07:00:26 PM

Quote from: erre on January 09, 2015, 06:51:12 PM

- snip -
I know that the whole bitcoin concept would be a non-sense if the blockchain is altered....but if the majority of miners agrees about changing it isn't it possible? Beside this being a bad idea, wich I do not doubt it is...

No.

Bitcoin is not a "majority rules" system. It's a consensus system. If 49% of the miners agree to accept blocks that contain transactions that include that address, and 51% or the miners reject those blocks, the blockchain will fork. The miners that choose to accept the blocks will modify their code to ignore the longer chain that is rejecting the blocks so that they don't loose their block rewards. There will be two separate alt-coins: "fungible bitcoin" and "blacklist bitcoin". Users will need to distinguish which "coin" they are agreeing to send or receive. The whole system will likely break down.

I don't think that forking bitcoin in " clean coins" and " free coins" would be a good idea for many reasons, but I don't think this would destroy bitcoin at all....just some miners switching to an alt-coin

DannyHamilton

legendary

Activity: 3416

Merit: 4658

Quote from: erre on January 09, 2015, 06:51:12 PM

- snip -
I know that the whole bitcoin concept would be a non-sense if the blockchain is altered....but if the majority of miners agrees about changing it isn't it possible? Beside this being a bad idea, wich I do not doubt it is...

No.

Bitcoin is not a "majority rules" system. It's a consensus system. If 49% of the miners agree to accept blocks that contain transactions that include that address, and 51% or the miners reject those blocks, the blockchain will fork. The miners that choose to accept the blocks will modify their code to ignore the longer chain that is rejecting the blocks so that they don't loose their block rewards. There will be two separate alt-coins: "fungible bitcoin" and "blacklist bitcoin". Users will need to distinguish which "coin" they are agreeing to send or receive. The whole system will likely break down.

Quote from: goosoodude on January 09, 2015, 06:57:32 PM

Everyone will eventually move to the bigger chain, it will not destroy it.

No. Not everybody. Mr. Teal said 50% + 1.

If EVERYBODY (all miners, all users, all merchants) agree to accept the "blacklist bitcoin", then that is "consensus" and would work. However, you will likely find it completely impossible to convince EVERYBODY to use the "blacklist bitcoin".

If some people insist on using the "fungible bitcoin", then those people will make sure that they are running software that rejects the "bigger chain" from the "blacklist bitcoin". This will fork the blockchain into two alt-coins.

Quote from: goosoodude on January 09, 2015, 06:57:32 PM

It will make it dangerous and kill any trust in the blockchain.

Correct.

goosoodude

hero member

Activity: 584

Merit: 500

Quote from: DannyHamilton on January 09, 2015, 06:55:05 PM

Quote from: MrTeal on January 09, 2015, 06:51:02 PM

Quote from: goosoodude on January 09, 2015, 06:45:18 PM

How are you going to find the 'general net consensus'? Think about it, its not possible.
- snip -

It's easy, just 50%+1.

That is NOT a consensus. That is a simple majority.

Bitcoin is a consensus system. 50% + 1 would simple result in a forked blockchain, and would likely destroy both forks.

Everyone will eventually move to the bigger chain, it will not destroy it.

It will make it dangerous and kill any trust in the blockchain. With the mining centralisation it means a few miners can decide anytime to snatch the wealth of anybody they dislike. Now, that will kill it.

goosoodude

hero member

Activity: 584

Merit: 500

Quote from: erre on January 09, 2015, 06:51:12 PM

I know that the whole bitcoin concept would be a non-sense if the blockchain is altered....but if the majority of miners agrees about changing it isn't is possible? Beside this being a bad idea, wich I do not doubt it is...

The transaction cant be reversed since so many blcoks have passed. It was possible if the majority acted fast and rolled back to the block prior to that transaction and all the miners refused the transaction.

Now a hard fork can be submitted which can do anything including making that address unspendable. Thats the easy part. The impossible part is to get the miners as well as the merchants and exchanges to switch.

DannyHamilton

legendary

Activity: 3416

Merit: 4658

Quote from: MrTeal on January 09, 2015, 06:51:02 PM

Quote from: goosoodude on January 09, 2015, 06:45:18 PM

How are you going to find the 'general net consensus'? Think about it, its not possible.
- snip -

It's easy, just 50%+1.

That is NOT a consensus. That is a simple majority.

Bitcoin is a consensus system. 50% + 1 would simple result in a forked blockchain, and would likely destroy both forks.

Quote from: MrTeal on January 09, 2015, 06:51:02 PM

It would be really useful too.

Useful for any oppressive organization that wants to gain control of the funds of others.

Quote from: MrTeal on January 09, 2015, 06:51:02 PM

If we could do this, we could use it to remove coins that get used to fund terrorists. Or bad people that buy drugs. Or people that have their gains from bad things like crime. There's lots of things that more than 50% of people are against that we could blacklist. Support gay marriage? Gone. Abortion? Gone. Once we confiscate the coins of everyone we don't like, we can use bitcoin like the proper upstanding currency it was meant to be.

Ah, sorry, I see the sarcasm/satire now. Didn't catch that at first.

erre

legendary

Activity: 1652

Merit: 1205

Quote from: DannyHamilton on January 09, 2015, 06:46:00 PM

Quote from: erre on January 09, 2015, 06:41:14 PM

There is general net consensus about that address storing stolen coins,

No. There isn't.

Quote from: erre on January 09, 2015, 06:41:14 PM

can't a transaction be reversed via a fork or something?

Not without the likely destruction of Bitcoin.

Quote from: erre on January 09, 2015, 06:41:14 PM

I know the coins are not still Int his address, but just as an example...

It's a very bad idea. There are several reasons why it is a very bad idea.

Sorry, I was talking about the " old" empty address, I didn't checked it

I know that the whole bitcoin concept would be a non-sense if the blockchain is altered....but if the majority of miners agrees about changing it isn't it possible? Beside this being a bad idea, wich I do not doubt it is...

cr1776

legendary

Activity: 4060

Merit: 1303

Quote from: erre on January 09, 2015, 06:41:14 PM

Quote from: goosoodude on January 09, 2015, 06:33:18 PM

Quote from: Delek on January 09, 2015, 05:28:13 PM

We all know that it belongs to the Bitstamp hacker, a thief; why then, the whole network, knowing that Bitcoins are coming from a hack, can't do anything about it? Why if we all agree, the network, can't do anything against this injustice?

Who are 'all'? How do we 'know' beyond any shadow of doubt?

Its easy to think that cases like this should be handled like as you suggested, but where do you stop? Its supposed to be trustless, you are putting in actors you have to trust.

There is general net consensus about that address storing stolen coins, can't a transaction be reversed via a fork or something?

I know the coins are not still Int his address, but just as an example...

If we do this: Who decides what consensus is? How do you know that this is the consensus? Is it 51%? 60%? 75%? 90%? 99.99%? Is it by person? How do you track people? By address? (I can create 10 billion addresses to vote?) By number of "coins"? Can the hacker vote?

What if a government decided that we should block X coins after that? Which government should be allowed to block them? UK, China, Russia, US, Mexico, North K, Cuba, which?

As was said, be careful what you think is the "net consensus" because like the "consensus" about who the Boston bombers were, it is often wrong.

Do a search for fungibility and the problems with it and why it is a bad idea.

:-)

MrTeal

legendary

Activity: 1274

Merit: 1004

Quote from: goosoodude on January 09, 2015, 06:45:18 PM

Quote from: erre on January 09, 2015, 06:41:14 PM

There is general net consensus about that address storing stolen coins, can't a transaction be reversed via a fork or something?

How are you going to find the 'general net consensus'? Think about it, its not possible.

Technically its a simple matter of hard forking and making it unspendable.

It's easy, just 50%+1.
It would be really useful too. If we could do this, we could use it to remove coins that get used to fund terrorists. Or bad people that buy drugs. Or people that have their gains from bad things like crime. There's lots of things that more than 50% of people are against that we could blacklist. Support gay marriage? Gone. Abortion? Gone. Once we confiscate the coins of everyone we don't like, we can use bitcoin like the proper upstanding currency it was meant to be.

Topic: Decentralized Security in the Blockchain (Read 1669 times)