Bitcoin and Democracy, 51% attack

[Josh F]

I was just pondering this today.  For those who don't know, a 51% attack in the bitcoin world means that someone controls 51% of the mining pool.  And this is a dangerous and bad thing to be avoided at all costs (even by the companies which achieve the 51%)....and then it hit me

 

Democracy is a 51% attack.  

[Prairie]

someone controls 51% of the mining pool.

Democracy is a 51% attack.

Do you mean where the people voting all give their control to some central decision-maker and vote how they want them to?

[Kevin Beal]

As far as bitcoin is concerned, the 51% attack is not really something worth being concerned about. Andreas Antonopolous explains in some detail here (the whole video is great, but the relevant part is at 49 minutes).

 

The incentives are such that GHash.io or any other mining pool which is able to collect 51% of the hashing power of the bitcoin network is going to stand to make so much more profit by being a good actor, and if they were able to do a single double spend, it could make the entire bitcoin network take a huge hit, enough that whatever they gained would quickly lose value, or the bitcoin public ledger is rolled back before the double spend and it was all for nothing and they go bankrupt with none of the people currently mining with them wanting to stick with that pool.

 

But I think the analogy is fitting in that when you reach 51% of people voting they can achieve a new direction to point the guns of the state. Something you couldn't do with purely voluntary interaction where the incentives are such that free and voluntary actors in the market benefit by providing real value to one another.

[Josh F]

Do you mean where the people voting all give their control to some central decision-maker and vote how they want them to?

no

 

As far as bitcoin is concerned, the 51% attack is not really something worth being concerned about. Andreas Antonopolous explains in some detail here (the whole video is great, but the relevant part is at 49 minutes).

 

The incentives are such that GHash.io or any other mining pool which is able to collect 51% of the hashing power of the bitcoin network is going to stand to make so much more profit by being a good actor, and if they were able to do a single double spend, it could make the entire bitcoin network take a huge hit, enough that whatever they gained would quickly lose value, or the bitcoin public ledger is rolled back before the double spend and it was all for nothing and they go bankrupt with none of the people currently mining with them wanting to stick with that pool.

 

But I think the analogy is fitting in that when you reach 51% of people voting they can achieve a new direction to point the guns of the state. Something you couldn't do with purely voluntary interaction where the incentives are such that free and voluntary actors in the market benefit by providing real value to one another.

exactly.  Its interesting to see a free market currency like bitcoin create anti-democratic incentives.  In this context, it is so easy to understand why 51% control over a system is inherently corrupting to the system, and ultimately devalues it.  Happens every 4 years.  

[st434u]

The incentives are such that GHash.io or any other mining pool which is able to collect 51% of the hashing power of the bitcoin network is going to stand to make so much more profit by being a good actor, and if they were able to do a single double spend, it could make the entire bitcoin network take a huge hit, enough that whatever they gained would quickly lose value, or the bitcoin public ledger is rolled back before the double spend and it was all for nothing and they go bankrupt with none of the people currently mining with them wanting to stick with that pool.

 

From my limited understanding of the intricacies of bitcoin, I can say the following:

 

This assumes two things. First, that the entity which at any given point in time acquires 51% of the hashing power at that given point in time, plans to continue having the same hashing power used for bitcoins in the future. It could be the case that the given entity has the necessary equipment to acquire 51% of the bitcoin hashing power at a given point in time by simply switching their equipment from whatever else it was being used for, into hashing bitcoin at the given point in time, for the sole purpose of becoming the owners of all bitcoins during that period, and doing whatever they want with them.

 

Second, it assumes that this entity has making a profit as it's prime objective. It may be that the sole purpose of this entity is to destroy or discredit bitcoin; for example if this entity was a coordinated effort among several or even all world central banks/governments, or even just one.

 

-

 

Then again, as others here may already know, I'm not really concerned with issues such as this, because I think that bitcoin will fail regarless of whether any of this happens or not. And because State agents, if they're smart, should realize that the best they can do is leave bitcoin to collapse on it's own, then they can say "I told you so" and get people back into fiat money with more faith than ever.

 

For reference on my views on bitcoin's (and all other cryptocurrencies's) problems from a monetary theory perspective, visit these threads:

 

https://board.freedomainradio.com/topic/38337-bitcoin-intrinsic-value-and-mises-regression-theorem/

 

https://board.freedomainradio.com/topic/39541-bitcoin-fanatics-say-the-darnedest-things/

[Kevin Beal]

It could be the case that the given entity has the necessary equipment to acquire 51% of the bitcoin hashing power at a given point in time by simply switching their equipment from whatever else it was being used for, into hashing bitcoin at the given point in time, for the sole purpose of becoming the owners of all bitcoins during that period, and doing whatever they want with them.

 

Second, it assumes that this entity has making a profit as it's prime objective. It may be that the sole purpose of this entity is to destroy or discredit bitcoin; for example if this entity was a coordinated effort among several or even all world central banks/governments, or even just one.

The bitcoin network has more hashing power than all of the top 70 or so supercomputers in the world or something like that. There is no group that could do this, for one thing, but also your statement "doing whatever they want with them" is false. From what I understand, what they can do is control the next block for a single double spend which would be immediately noticed by every miner who tried to mine that next block (something like that, please correct me if I'm wrong guys).

 

It's not a viable threat according to all the experts I've heard comment on the issue.

 

If bitcoin is taken down by a vulnerability in it's design, it won't be because of a 51% attack. Other threats could, though. A quantum computer could theoretically make some of it's elliptic curve cryptography useless, but I don't understand it well enough to elaborate. It would have to be something that was invisible, long lasting and couldn't easily be patched. A threat like this could exist, but no one seems to have found it yet.

[PatrickC]

No, your synopsis is correct Kevin. The margin (if any) here is pretty fine. That interview you linked to earlier explains it pretty well if I recall.

 

But like all investments, spread your bets here and there with alternatives.

[st434u]

The bitcoin network has more hashing power than all of the top 70 or so supercomputers in the world or something like that. There is no group that could do this, for one thing,

I don't know what you mean by supercomputers. But do you really believe that if the Federal Reserve, or the World Bank wanted to do this, they could not buy or rent enough computing power to do it? Or what if all the computers at NASA were put to this use for a few days? And I'm not even getting to the level of multiple central banks/governments cooperating with each other, let alone all of them. 

but also your statement "doing whatever they want with them" is false. From what I understand, what they can do is control the next block for a single double spend which would be immediately noticed by every miner who tried to mine that next block (something like that, please correct me if I'm wrong guys).

I heard that if they control 51% of the network, then they can validate whatever transfers they want, and at that point they can steal all the bitcoins from everybody. Maybe what I heard is wrong. Or maybe in order to do that it takes a supermajority that is much greater than 51%?

[Kevin Beal]

I don't know what you mean by supercomputers. But do you really believe that if the Federal Reserve, or the World Bank wanted to do this, they could not buy or rent enough computing power to do it? Or what if all the computers at NASA were put to this use for a few days? And I'm not even getting to the level of multiple central banks/governments cooperating with each other, let alone all of them. 

I heard that if they control 51% of the network, then they can validate whatever transfers they want, and at that point they can steal all the bitcoins from everybody. Maybe what I heard is wrong. Or maybe in order to do that it takes a supermajority that is much greater than 51%?

From what I understand, there is no way to organize enough computing power, even for the fed or a group of governments.

 

And, no, they couldn't steal all the bitcoin. http://learncryptography.com/51-attack/

[Josh F]

Right, I think the worst consequence of a 51% attack is that the blockchain splits?  Fuck this shit is wicked hard to understand on a technical level.  I'm still trying to figure out how they fit all those 1's and 0's inside my computer.