A small thread about Bitcoin censorship and why it probably does not need >50% hashrate.
Imagine you are a honest miner that likes Bitcoin. You create your own blocks, with transactions you choose (Stratum v2 for example).
You _know_ for sure that 10% of hashrate is censoring transactions according to publicly available blacklist of UTXOs. And they also orphan blocks that include censored transactions.
There is a new block ahead, with a blacklisted UTXO with high enough fee that you would include it in a block. The fee is 5 USD (~30k sats) higher than the next transaction that does not make it into the block. You would love to be a good Bitcoiner and include the tx. However...
If you find a block that includes this tx, you are risking that it will not be in the best chain. 10% of hashpower will straight orphan the block. Then it's a bet if your tx will be in the best chain. But 10% will choose the chain where your block is an orphan, others it's ~50%?
Upside: 5 USD more in transaction fees, good feeling that you are a good non-censoring Bitcoiner.
Downside: 6.4BTC in block reward with 10%*50% probablity.
Cost-benefit analysis in USD: 5+(value_of_being_good_bitcoiner)-0.1*0.5*6.4*16000.
If you value being a good bitcoiner at 1k USD, the cost benefit is a negative 4115 USD. So maybe it is a good idea not to include this transaction. It does not matter if _you_ think it's a good idea. If others do so, the 10% goes up. With 20% hashrate censoring, it's -9235 USD.
Also note, that nodes that are censoring are excluding the non-censoring hashrate, meaning more rewards for them. So if you join the dark side and also orphan the non-censoring chain, you will make even more in block rewards. Everyone is motivated to kick out hashrate.
This is a case of minority rule, as described in "The most intolerant wins: Dictatorship by a small minority" by @nntaleb.
So in conclusion, a small minority of miners enforcing censorship one block back could successfully introduce censorship and make more money doing so. Even the honest miners would comply if they are motivated by profit.
I did a write-up of this in an article that is even longer than this thread. I just wanted to explain that this is not about "51% could introduce censorship" (and please, say >50%, 50.23% is more than 50% too!).
A 🧵 on "home nodes" – become your own cloud, bank and credit card company.
Cypherpunks like to run their own software, from Tor relays to Bitcoin nodes. These projects will likely integrate more in the future.
Some people have bad experiences with cloud services: deplatforming
Software authors are getting kicked out of platforms like Github for varied reasons.
Instead of relying on these centralized services, we should reject this model altogether and take control of our data.
(Yes, that includes social networks, I am also using Mastodon)
This is where the concept of "home nodes" comes in - running your own cloud from the comfort of your own home
Projects like Nextcloud, FreeNAS, and commercial options like Synology or QNAP are becoming more popular as people realize the importance of sovereignty over their data
Whatever your opinion on climate change is, some transition from fossil fuels to electric vehicles will happen – either by the ⚡️🚗 becoming a better choice, but more likely by a combination of incentives and regulation.
The rise in electric vehicles & shift away from fossil fuels is putting strain on aging energy grids. Blackouts may become more common as demand becomes more volatile.
Additionally, increased use of solar & wind energy means production is also becoming less predictable.
To combat this, there may be a need for more controllable "insurance" products such as natural gas plants or adaptable production processes.
Investing in local energy production, such as solar panels, can save on distribution costs & protect against potential price increases.
Cypherpunk social networks have always been different from traditional ways of communication. Using nicknames on IRC, communicating in groups based on topics, and expecting pseudonymity or anonymity.
A 🧵 on new social networks.
We are moving away from big tech social networks and towards private groups on Signal, Element/Matrix, or even @DarkFiSquad peer-to-peer IRC.
@DarkFiSquad There are new projects with different approaches popping up all the time, such as @ethstatus that wants to combine the functionality of DAOs with tokens and social networks.
The current implementation is very alpha, but it is in interesting experiment on creating communities.
Many people are unhappy with the current state of "crony capitalism" where corporations have significant influence over government. And that might even be better than if politicians had the only influence...
This is particularly evident in the way that small businesses are burdened by tax regulations and bureaucracy when trying to sell online services on what is supposed to be a "global market".
For example, if an author wants to sell a book directly to a customer, they must navigate VAT and sales tax laws for each country the customer is located in.
(For 🇪🇺, they need to record 2-3 'proofs' of residency and declare tax. Selling from 🇰🇭 and having to register in 🇭🇺)
Small (or one-person) companies have a number of advantages over large ones, especially in times of crisis.
Smaller firms are more agile and can adapt to changing market conditions more easily.
Be too small to fail!
How? A 🧵
Small companies have fewer fixed costs, like salaries and infrastructure, which makes it easier for them to reduce expenses in the face of declining demand or production issues.
Large companies, on the other hand, are more vulnerable to such fluctuations due to their size and complexity, and may ask for government intervention to prevent their failure.
(No, you do not want to rely on government intervention of "too big to fail")