Bitcoin is not decentralized [video](youtube.com)
youtube.com
Bitcoin is not decentralized [video]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1f3_h3LuBQA
6 comments
> 50 miners (maybe less) control enough of the network to seize control when they desire.
This is FUD.
The counterparty to miners are the nodes, and they are the ones in control of the network. There are about 47000 nodes and anyone can run one (this is why the block size is small) on like $200 worth of hardware.
This is FUD.
The counterparty to miners are the nodes, and they are the ones in control of the network. There are about 47000 nodes and anyone can run one (this is why the block size is small) on like $200 worth of hardware.
What does control of the network mean?
An entity controlling the majority of mining power can produce the longest chain. But nodes respect the longest valid chain (by their definition of validity), so they can reject a change supported by miners, by considering that chain invalid. That supports your idea that the 47,000 nodes, which anybody can run, control the network.
But if there are competing definitions of validity, what really matters to me is the version of "validity" accepted by the counterparty I wish to send coins to. In today's world that is pretty much exchanges, since not very many businesses accept Bitcoin directly.
If there is a fork of Bitcoin where miners are in contention with node operators, the winner is the side of the fork that Binance+Coinbase+FTX+Kraken decide to treat as "BTC" and the loser is the side they treat as "Bitcoin Kinda-Sorta".
An entity controlling the majority of mining power can produce the longest chain. But nodes respect the longest valid chain (by their definition of validity), so they can reject a change supported by miners, by considering that chain invalid. That supports your idea that the 47,000 nodes, which anybody can run, control the network.
But if there are competing definitions of validity, what really matters to me is the version of "validity" accepted by the counterparty I wish to send coins to. In today's world that is pretty much exchanges, since not very many businesses accept Bitcoin directly.
If there is a fork of Bitcoin where miners are in contention with node operators, the winner is the side of the fork that Binance+Coinbase+FTX+Kraken decide to treat as "BTC" and the loser is the side they treat as "Bitcoin Kinda-Sorta".
The exchanges scenario you propose is an interesting one, and could happen.
Hopefully lightning makes more exchanges pop up and diffuse this.
Hopefully lightning makes more exchanges pop up and diffuse this.
That is a good video. I do have a couple questions. I asked these questions at a company that implemented blockchain but was never really given a complete answer.
- Who runs the ledgers and what guarantee is there aside from cryptographic smoke that the entities/corporations running the ledgers can't collude? This gets into the question of independent cryptographic audits and looking for mathematical back doors. How can one know with certainty that one entity can't make subtle manipulations to this systems/markets?
- How do you delete data from the blockchain? Let's say someone decides to use blockchain for identity management. Some day a court agrees that a person needs to be protected under witness protection but their identity is in the blockchain. How do you remove it? Not revoke it, but completely remove all traces of it?
- Who runs the ledgers and what guarantee is there aside from cryptographic smoke that the entities/corporations running the ledgers can't collude? This gets into the question of independent cryptographic audits and looking for mathematical back doors. How can one know with certainty that one entity can't make subtle manipulations to this systems/markets?
- How do you delete data from the blockchain? Let's say someone decides to use blockchain for identity management. Some day a court agrees that a person needs to be protected under witness protection but their identity is in the blockchain. How do you remove it? Not revoke it, but completely remove all traces of it?
> How do you remove it? Not revoke it, but completely remove all traces of it?
You can't.
You can't really remove anything that has been made public. You can try but odds are there is a copy somewhere.
For bitcoin: if everyone was cooperating you could update the protocol to replace that block with a version that had the desired information removed, however this block and its replacement would require special verification because the normal rules will obviously fail (because the normal rules forbid change).
You can't.
You can't really remove anything that has been made public. You can try but odds are there is a copy somewhere.
For bitcoin: if everyone was cooperating you could update the protocol to replace that block with a version that had the desired information removed, however this block and its replacement would require special verification because the normal rules will obviously fail (because the normal rules forbid change).
Thankyou. That was my understanding as well. I wasn't sure if something had evolved/changed but sound like it hasn't.
Why are you looking for something to evolve? Your writing suggests a pejorative term?
Although miners can collude to replace data, there are still copies of the prior data from people who can't contribute to the collusions and it would be major news at that point in time. Crisis of confidence have occurred in these systems and every major service has managed them before (typically by either rejecting deposits and withdrawals client side, or extending the amount of time necessary to determine if the content of a block stays where it is), and then the chain continues as normal when the disruption is gone (time to check if block content stays drops back lower).
Although miners can collude to replace data, there are still copies of the prior data from people who can't contribute to the collusions and it would be major news at that point in time. Crisis of confidence have occurred in these systems and every major service has managed them before (typically by either rejecting deposits and withdrawals client side, or extending the amount of time necessary to determine if the content of a block stays where it is), and then the chain continues as normal when the disruption is gone (time to check if block content stays drops back lower).
No pejorative implied, apologies if it came out that way. I expect all software to constantly evolve and adapt to the needs of its user base. Given that I am not a cryptocurrency user I have not kept current with how things work.
What's evolved is the operational security of the IT services. Before, most of the scary issues that you described were only scary because they hadn't come up yet and were populated by theoretical conjecture. Then people realized they weren't scary and made processes to still run their business during network disruptions, no different than relying on other digital platforms.
How do you know blockchain actually works?
It's no different than any other software; it has to gradually earn confidence over time. Major math flaws were found in Zcash and more recently ECDSA threshold signatures and they had to be patched. Likewise understanding of cryptoeconomics has evolved (see selfish mining and MEV as examples) and will continue to evolve. It happens.
How do you delete data from the blockchain?
You don't put the data on the blockchain in the first place; you put a pointer. This doesn't solve all cases but it's better than nothing.
It's no different than any other software; it has to gradually earn confidence over time. Major math flaws were found in Zcash and more recently ECDSA threshold signatures and they had to be patched. Likewise understanding of cryptoeconomics has evolved (see selfish mining and MEV as examples) and will continue to evolve. It happens.
How do you delete data from the blockchain?
You don't put the data on the blockchain in the first place; you put a pointer. This doesn't solve all cases but it's better than nothing.
Some interesting points, but very myopic. He says he is talking about blockchain crypto in general not bitcoin, and then goes and enumerate bitcoin limitations
He ignores that there are a lot faster networks other than Bitcoin
He ignores that there are more private networks like Monero
Even if blockchain crypto is a step behind cash, which is being phased out in most places, it is still a step ahead of all other virtual finance platforms, and will probably replaced them
Everything else, blockchains are tools... We just need to use them to our advantage. Dystopian futures will not cease because of it or lack thereof
He ignores that there are a lot faster networks other than Bitcoin
He ignores that there are more private networks like Monero
Even if blockchain crypto is a step behind cash, which is being phased out in most places, it is still a step ahead of all other virtual finance platforms, and will probably replaced them
Everything else, blockchains are tools... We just need to use them to our advantage. Dystopian futures will not cease because of it or lack thereof
He first say that google servers are decentralized, but after his explanations, the google servers are more like distributed than decentralized.
If there was a good argument, it should make sense in plain text:
> and you can think of this like the google search that's provided > google search is a centralized search system yet the the actual computation for that search is actually distributed across the entire planet > so uh that provides a perfect analogy for how uh bitcoin and uh litecoin and dogecoin how all of these different coins work they're actually centralized systems providing a centralized service while at the same time having the computation spread out across the entire planet
Totally missing the point that centralization is about who has control, not where things happen. Distributing operation but not control of those operations isn't meaningful here, which is what makes Google search not a good analogy for blockchains. I'm not pro-blockchain (until we find effective use/implementation), but I'm definitely anti-misinformation.
> and you can think of this like the google search that's provided > google search is a centralized search system yet the the actual computation for that search is actually distributed across the entire planet > so uh that provides a perfect analogy for how uh bitcoin and uh litecoin and dogecoin how all of these different coins work they're actually centralized systems providing a centralized service while at the same time having the computation spread out across the entire planet
Totally missing the point that centralization is about who has control, not where things happen. Distributing operation but not control of those operations isn't meaningful here, which is what makes Google search not a good analogy for blockchains. I'm not pro-blockchain (until we find effective use/implementation), but I'm definitely anti-misinformation.
just curious, have you heard of lightning network ? try things out, try breez wallet. you can pay with lightning at McDonalds, Starbucks in El Salvador
rest of your claims about blockchain, privacy etc - are correct
the "Crypto" and "web3" is all scams
rest of your claims about blockchain, privacy etc - are correct
the "Crypto" and "web3" is all scams
LN is mathematically guaranteed to end up centralized.
how so?
also it doesn't impact Bitcoin, you can self-custody most of your wealth. Put what's needed to transact on lightning (checking account)
also it doesn't impact Bitcoin, you can self-custody most of your wealth. Put what's needed to transact on lightning (checking account)
https://medium.com/@jonaldfyookball/mathematical-proof-that-...
In short, if it didn't (it does), then we've proven P = NP and the very foundation of Bitcoin itself crumbles.
Self custody of bitcoin is not self custody of wealth. Not your fiat not your wealth.
In short, if it didn't (it does), then we've proven P = NP and the very foundation of Bitcoin itself crumbles.
Self custody of bitcoin is not self custody of wealth. Not your fiat not your wealth.
when you realize this author makes money from shitcoin content:
https://news.bitcoin.com/author/jonald/
drink the kool-aid , rather than trying the software itself.
good luck
https://news.bitcoin.com/author/jonald/
drink the kool-aid , rather than trying the software itself.
good luck
Do you have a rebuttal of any substance or just personal attacks on the author?
The irony of a bitcoiner accusing someone else of drinking the Kool aid. Lots of people participated and made money in Madoff's scheme for decades too.
The irony of a bitcoiner accusing someone else of drinking the Kool aid. Lots of people participated and made money in Madoff's scheme for decades too.
You'll notice that he refuses to address any aspect of the and doesn't understand graph theory as much as he's pretending to, as noted in the top comment on the post.
fyi before downvoting: this article's author works at bitcoin.com which is run by Bitcoin-cash people, it was an attack on Bitcoin that failed
read the book: the blocksize wars
read the book: the blocksize wars
It is a logical fallacy to focus on who the author is. You either can point out where the error in his reasoning is, or not. Because it sounded pretty convincing to me: to participate in routing a payment you need to have at least the paid amount tied in the lightning network, which favors people with a lot of spare cash, who can have more channels open, and process more payments.
No, this is FUD.
Most people will only open one channel ever in their lifetime.
Your scenario is correct only if you will only send, most people won't, most people will first receive (get paid) then send.
Say someone wants in, he opens a $20 channel, maybe he wants to pay for some small stuf at first so $20 will do.
But then this person will get paid for his work, say $1k.. his channel isn't constrained to those first $20, this channel is now "widened" to $1k.
Most people will only open one channel ever in their lifetime.
Your scenario is correct only if you will only send, most people won't, most people will first receive (get paid) then send.
Say someone wants in, he opens a $20 channel, maybe he wants to pay for some small stuf at first so $20 will do.
But then this person will get paid for his work, say $1k.. his channel isn't constrained to those first $20, this channel is now "widened" to $1k.
Ok now show the mathematical proof or demonstrate the error in his.
Everything that doesn't carry the coiner narrative of "number go up" is FUD
Everything that doesn't carry the coiner narrative of "number go up" is FUD
Mathematical proof? This is code we're talking about.
I don't have to show mathematical proof, but in fact, the code is open source, so you can go and see for yourself what I said is true and immutable.
I don't have to show mathematical proof, but in fact, the code is open source, so you can go and see for yourself what I said is true and immutable.
If what you described is true (it isn't), what allows the person to only open one channel?
[deleted]
I wish he'd spent some time discussing the fact that bitcoin's 'value' is proportional to the electricity needed for hashing, and that property will favor aggregating control to a few actors at whatever geographic local has the cheapest electricity. The political and environmental shenanigans exploited by these actors is a deep dive, too, but out of scope for his thesis.
[1] https://www.tomshardware.com/news/study-finds-bitcoin-more-c...