pull down to refresh
0 sats \ 4 replies \ @ek 28 Oct 2022 \ parent \ on: Are alternate Bitcoin implementations dangerous? bitcoin
How would it be state captured? And why would a competing implementation not be state captured?
How would it be state captured?
They can just take over the repo, replace the devs, etc. Stare capture is just an example. The current devs can also be paid off, go rogue, there could be a civil war inside the main devs (different from the blocksize war where all devs were aligned).
And why would a competing implementation not be state captured?
It can, but it's easier to capture 1 software project than to capture multiple.
reply
So, They capture the software... and then what? The code is still open source and everyone can audit it and decide for themselves if they want to run it.
reply
Software needs to be constantly maintained, node operators will need to pick either a maintained software fork or an alternative implementation. Staying on an unmaintained version for a long time is just asking for trouble.
As I mentioned in my original comment, if there is no alternative implementation, there can be a period of instability with no clear winning software fork. There could be potentially disastrous with constant chainsplits and undefined chain states.
reply
I see your point, but in order for that to happen the gov would have to buy off pretty much every single developer, no? If the 'main' repo starts to hard fork it needs the networks approval as well, or another code-fork will become the 'main' repo. We haven't seen that happen yet, but that's how i imagine it to go down. Bitcoin is kinda unique in that regard, that splits can happen both in the code and in the network. I agree with your statement that in such a case there could be instability if no clear winner arises. If the attack is launched systematically the attacker would probably make sure to devide the network in as many parties as possible, to make sure there is no clear 'rival'.
reply