Topic: Is Bitcoin not decentralized anymore? - page 3. (Read 6981 times)

Quote from: phillipsjk on June 17, 2014, 07:24:26 PM

Hash rate is part of the 51% attack problem.

Which isn't a problem, so doesn't need to be fixed.

I think you may be underestimating the dangers of mining concentration.
My latest book-mark: How A Mining Monopoly Can Attack Bitcoin

Quote

Loss of decentralized trust narrative, inability to differentiate Bitcoin from competing technologies.
Double-spends against 6-confirmed transactions are certain to succeed.
Selected miner targeting: Pool can reject any selected block found by any competing miner.
Selected transaction targeting: Pool can reject any selected transaction and keep it out of the blockchain.
Selected address blocking: Pool can block Bitcoin flows in or out of selected addresses.
Transaction Differentiation: Pool can deprioritize certain transactions and rely on other miners to mine them unless a (hefty) fee is attached.
Fee Extortion: Pool can deny transactions from a particular address unless a (hefty) fee is attached to those transactions.
Complete denial of service: Pool can ignore and orphan every single block found by competitors, thus stop all Bitcoin transactions.

I think this sums it up nicely. There are lots of things a 51% pool can't do, but there are also a lot of non-armageddon type things that it can. The hacking distributed guys have done a good job laying things out and make a pretty convincing case that bitcoin isn't decentralized if a single entity is at 51%.

Agreed, because these are the main arguments for decentralized systems.

SRG

full member

Activity: 127

Merit: 100

Quote from: DannyHamilton on June 17, 2014, 04:17:11 PM

Quote from: DannyHamilton on June 17, 2014, 04:17:11 PM

Hash rate is part of the 51% attack problem.

Which isn't a problem, so doesn't need to be fixed.

I think you may be underestimating the dangers of mining concentration.
My latest book-mark: How A Mining Monopoly Can Attack Bitcoin

Quote

Loss of decentralized trust narrative, inability to differentiate Bitcoin from competing technologies.
Double-spends against 6-confirmed transactions are certain to succeed.
Selected miner targeting: Pool can reject any selected block found by any competing miner.
Selected transaction targeting: Pool can reject any selected transaction and keep it out of the blockchain.
Selected address blocking: Pool can block Bitcoin flows in or out of selected addresses.
Transaction Differentiation: Pool can deprioritize certain transactions and rely on other miners to mine them unless a (hefty) fee is attached.
Fee Extortion: Pool can deny transactions from a particular address unless a (hefty) fee is attached to those transactions.
Complete denial of service: Pool can ignore and orphan every single block found by competitors, thus stop all Bitcoin transactions.

I think this sums it up nicely. There are lots of things a 51% pool can't do, but there are also a lot of non-armageddon type things that it can. The hacking distributed guys have done a good job laying things out and make a pretty convincing case that bitcoin isn't decentralized if a single entity is at 51%.

phillipsjk

legendary

Activity: 1008

Merit: 1001

Let the chips fall where they may.

Hash rate is part of the 51% attack problem.

Which isn't a problem, so doesn't need to be fixed.

I think you may be underestimating the dangers of mining concentration.
My latest book-mark: How A Mining Monopoly Can Attack Bitcoin

Quote

Loss of decentralized trust narrative, inability to differentiate Bitcoin from competing technologies.
Double-spends against 6-confirmed transactions are certain to succeed.
Selected miner targeting: Pool can reject any selected block found by any competing miner.
Selected transaction targeting: Pool can reject any selected transaction and keep it out of the blockchain.
Selected address blocking: Pool can block Bitcoin flows in or out of selected addresses.
Transaction Differentiation: Pool can deprioritize certain transactions and rely on other miners to mine them unless a (hefty) fee is attached.
Fee Extortion: Pool can deny transactions from a particular address unless a (hefty) fee is attached to those transactions.
Complete denial of service: Pool can ignore and orphan every single block found by competitors, thus stop all Bitcoin transactions.

I am considering ignoring S4VV4S. They keep insisting that self-regulation can't work, even though it has in the past (admittedly when the community was smaller). A hard-fork to make hash-power concentration irrelevant would also "(loose the) decentralized trust narrative, (causing the) inability to differentiate Bitcoin from competing technologies."

Edit: in the speculation sub-forum it is often said that Bitcoin is either worth $astronomical_number or $0. I don't think I can overstate that a hard-fork to work around mining concentration will tend to make the latter value the more correct one.

DannyHamilton

legendary

Activity: 3472

Merit: 4801

Quote from: DannyHamilton on June 17, 2014, 04:10:57 PM

Hash rate is part of the 51% attack problem.

Which isn't a problem, so doesn't need to be fixed.

S4VV4S

hero member

Activity: 1582

Merit: 502

Yeah, try explaining to Cypriots (after what happened with Neo-Bee) that BTC is safe...
It's already got a bad name here man.

What does Neo-Bee have to do with mining hash rates?

Even if you could keep mining pools from gaining more than 50% of the hash power, it wouldn't prevent things like Neo-Bee.

If that's what has people concerned about the safety of Bitcoin, then you need to focus your attention on increasing transparency in business, not in regulating mining pools.

And I am working on a couple of projects to promote BTC but I need to feel a bit more confident that I can get people to trust it.
If you know what I am saying.

It's not easy after what happened with Neo-Bee.
People look at me as if I am trying to scam them.

Magically keeping mining pools from gaining more than 50% of the hash power isn't going to make people who are concerned about Neo-Bee trust it. You're focusing your attention in the wrong direction.

And yes I explain everything, but unfortunately even though technology is not far behind here, the majority of people are...
If you know what I mean....

If people aren't willing to take the time to understand why it's safe, then regulating miners isn't going to fix it for you.

I was referring to the educating people part.....
Hash rate is part of the 51% attack problem.

DannyHamilton

legendary

Activity: 3472

Merit: 4801

Yeah, try explaining to Cypriots (after what happened with Neo-Bee) that BTC is safe...
It's already got a bad name here man.

What does Neo-Bee have to do with mining hash rates?

Even if you could keep mining pools from gaining more than 50% of the hash power, it wouldn't prevent things like Neo-Bee.

If that's what has people concerned about the safety of Bitcoin, then you need to focus your attention on increasing transparency in business, not in regulating mining pools.

And I am working on a couple of projects to promote BTC but I need to feel a bit more confident that I can get people to trust it.
If you know what I am saying.

It's not easy after what happened with Neo-Bee.
People look at me as if I am trying to scam them.

Magically keeping mining pools from gaining more than 50% of the hash power isn't going to make people who are concerned about Neo-Bee trust it. You're focusing your attention in the wrong direction.

Quote from: AdamWhite on June 17, 2014, 03:45:58 PM

And yes I explain everything, but unfortunately even though technology is not far behind here, the majority of people are...
If you know what I mean....

If people aren't willing to take the time to understand why it's safe, then regulating miners isn't going to fix it for you.

S4VV4S

hero member

Activity: 1582

Merit: 502

Quote from: S4VV4S on June 17, 2014, 03:39:25 PM

Quote from: phillipsjk on June 17, 2014, 03:32:48 PM

IMO, if we can't trust miners and hashers to avoid concentrating hash-power, then Bitcoin has failed.

Despite comments up-thread, we are not dealing with complete imbeciles here. If you can handle making sure you don't exceed 12amps of continuous draw on a 15amp circuit; you can handle checking if your pool appears to have a dangerous amount of hash-power.

That's my argument here.
We want a trustless system yet we have to depend that nobody will screw us over.

I do not belive that there should be ANY kind of regulation or central authority, but since the dev-core team might be having difficulty comming up with a solution maybe we can join heads and create a TRUST-LESS system that prevents accumulation of 51% network hashrate.

I know I am being a but pushy here, but I like you have invested in BTC and believe in BTC.
And it's things like things that are holding us back.

Bro, depending on the devs to make a change (which will not make the network any safer btw) is the definition of centralization.

It is up to each and every miner to avoid concentrating their hashpower on any one particular pool

Couldn't agree with you more.
That's why - maybe - a solution can be presented that is decentralized and doesn't allow any one pool or individual to accumulate more than a certain % of hashrate

S4VV4S

hero member

Activity: 1582

Merit: 502

Quote from: DannyHamilton on June 17, 2014, 03:41:07 PM

Quote from: DannyHamilton on June 17, 2014, 03:16:37 PM

I think we need to start be figuring out if you are concerned that newcomers don't know that it is safe, or if you yourself are concerned that it isn't safe.

Bro, me personally I am not worried.

Great! Then there isn't a problem. Lets not go trying to fix something that isn't broken. Instead, lets work on educating others so that they won't be worried either.

However, every single person I have talked to about BTC seemed to be stuck to the "dangers" instead of the benefits.
The 51% attack being the biggets.

Then you should start explaining to them why you aren't worried. Educate them. If people don't understand something, then they fear it. The solution isn't to change the system. The solution is to educate people.

They even asked me: how is it decentralized if one entity can control it?

And you explained to them that one person can't control it, right?

WHat am I supposed to say?

The truth.

That having 51% doesn't allow them to steal your bitcoins. That having 51% doesn't allow them to create more than 21 million bitcoins. That having 51% doesn't allow them to change the size of the block reward. That having 51% doesn't allow them to do very much that they couldn't already do with 49%. Teach them. Inform them. Knowledge is the key to overcoming fear of the unknown.

The core-dev team is working on it?
Are they?

Working on what? I thought we just agreed that it isn't something to be afraid of.

Quote from: S4VV4S on June 17, 2014, 03:39:25 PM

That is an issue that if resolved - IT WILL - make BTC mainstream.

I agree. A lack of knowledge and irrational fears needs to be resolved. The resolution is education.

Yeah, try explaining to Cypriots (after what happened with Neo-Bee) that BTC is safe...
It's already got a bad name here man.

And I am working on a couple of projects to promote BTC but I need to feel a bit more confident that I can get people to trust it.
If you know what I am saying.

It's not easy after what happened with Neo-Bee.
People look at me as if I am trying to scam them.

And yes I explain everything, but unfortunately even though technology is not far behind here, the majority of people are...
If you know what I mean....

AdamWhite

hero member

Activity: 605

Merit: 500

Quote from: phillipsjk on June 17, 2014, 03:32:48 PM

IMO, if we can't trust miners and hashers to avoid concentrating hash-power, then Bitcoin has failed.

Despite comments up-thread, we are not dealing with complete imbeciles here. If you can handle making sure you don't exceed 12amps of continuous draw on a 15amp circuit; you can handle checking if your pool appears to have a dangerous amount of hash-power.

That's my argument here.
We want a trustless system yet we have to depend that nobody will screw us over.

I do not belive that there should be ANY kind of regulation or central authority, but since the dev-core team might be having difficulty comming up with a solution maybe we can join heads and create a TRUST-LESS system that prevents accumulation of 51% network hashrate.

I know I am being a but pushy here, but I like you have invested in BTC and believe in BTC.
And it's things like things that are holding us back.

Bro, depending on the devs to make a change (which will not make the network any safer btw) is the definition of centralization.

It is up to each and every miner to avoid concentrating their hashpower on any one particular pool

DannyHamilton

legendary

Activity: 3472

Merit: 4801

Quote from: DannyHamilton on June 17, 2014, 03:16:37 PM

I think we need to start be figuring out if you are concerned that newcomers don't know that it is safe, or if you yourself are concerned that it isn't safe.

Bro, me personally I am not worried.

Great! Then there isn't a problem. Lets not go trying to fix something that isn't broken. Instead, lets work on educating others so that they won't be worried either.

However, every single person I have talked to about BTC seemed to be stuck to the "dangers" instead of the benefits.
The 51% attack being the biggets.

Then you should start explaining to them why you aren't worried. Educate them. If people don't understand something, then they fear it. The solution isn't to change the system. The solution is to educate people.

They even asked me: how is it decentralized if one entity can control it?

And you explained to them that one person can't control it, right?

WHat am I supposed to say?

The truth.

That having 51% doesn't allow them to steal your bitcoins. That having 51% doesn't allow them to create more than 21 million bitcoins. That having 51% doesn't allow them to change the size of the block reward. That having 51% doesn't allow them to do very much that they couldn't already do with 49%. Teach them. Inform them. Knowledge is the key to overcoming fear of the unknown.

The core-dev team is working on it?
Are they?

Working on what? I thought we just agreed that it isn't something to be afraid of.