reply on: The part of Bitcoin you *have* to trust \ stacker news ~bitcoin

pull down to refresh

0 sats \ 7 replies \ @Scoresby OP 10h \ parent \ on: The part of Bitcoin you *have* to trust bitcoin

I think that BItcoin mining does have some strong centralizing pressures: latency in new block announcements and variance both favor larger miners. So a single miner gaining 51% or more of the hashrate is a real concern in my mind.

Game theory tells me that miners are better off making bitcoin network stronger rather than joining forces in a 51% attack to kill it.

I'm curious to hear an elaboration of this. I'm not well-versed in game theory.

123 sats \ 6 replies \ @SwapMarket 8h

In a nutshell: A successful 51% attack will let the miners reverse payments and steal coins, but kill the trust in the network and crush bitcoin price. So the attackers gain nothing but a pile of worthless coins and useless hardware they cannot sell. And if they short shit ton of bitcoin before the attack they must be absolutely sure it works. This cannot be done stealthily, so others will see and have double motivation to thwart the attack, squeezing the shorts while saving the network and the value of their ASICs.

21 sats \ 1 reply \ @Taj 8h

Brilliant explanation, reminds me of Satoshi outlining why it's more profitable to follow the rules than to attack them

21 sats \ 0 replies \ @SwapMarket 8h

thanks! that's how I remember that explanation

0 sats \ 3 replies \ @Scoresby OP 8h

I have often felt that the real risk of a 51% attack is control of the network. For instance, a miner with greater than 51% of the hash rate can attempt to reorg out blocks that include transactions it doesn't like.

We might say that this would wreck the value of the coin, but imagine it was to reorg out transactions that were from widely disfavored groups: a ransomware gang or a militant islamic group that had released a bioweapon. Less dramatically, do we believe the ETFs and exchanges and treasury companies will give a care if a single miner gains 51% of the hashrate and reorgs out blocks that include OFAC sanctioned transactions?

0 sats \ 2 replies \ @SwapMarket 8h

It is either uncensorable and decentralized, or not Bitcoin. We have thousands of centrally controlled shitcoin blockchains that are worthless and useless.

0 sats \ 1 reply \ @Scoresby OP 7h

what keeps bitcoin from following my above description?

my only answer is the fee market.

But that only works if people are willing to pay the fees. If people do not want to pay extra fees for transactions a censor wishes to exclude from blocks, bitcoin very likely ends up with miner centralization.

0 sats \ 0 replies \ @SwapMarket 7h

I see the opposite: any shady transaction can get inside a block if the sender pays enough fee directly to the willing miner. Regulatory capture of the miners to follow OFAC rules, then sanctions against certain countries, then individuals based on social rating? That is certainly against the ethos of Bitcoin. I will stop using it immediately if that happens. And dump all my coins.