@Nakadai_mon@profplum99@bitcoin_lisa@jordanbpeterson@Breedlove22@dergigi@aantonop - Climate is an absurd comparison
- It doesn't require G20 coordination (tho it's likely)
- Lightning doesn't work if you can't settle to the base layer
- Algo change doesn't work: the network is now more vulnerable. All you've done is restart exactly the same game at lower cost
@Nakadai_mon@profplum99@bitcoin_lisa@jordanbpeterson@Breedlove22@dergigi@aantonop I.e. The state will now out-produce you on the new algo instead, even faster. Not to mention you just fucked over all honest miners who were invested in SHA256. So why would anyone invest in new gear to mine the new algo if it's just going to predictably end up in the same place?
@Nakadai_mon@profplum99@bitcoin_lisa@jordanbpeterson@Breedlove22@dergigi@aantonop Realistically, the empty blocks wasn't even the important part of the article. E.g. The part where you announce your blocks reactively, creating a black hole of expenditure for all other miners, works whether you censor all transactions, some transactions, _or no transactions_.
@Nakadai_mon@profplum99@bitcoin_lisa@jordanbpeterson@Breedlove22@dergigi@aantonop Result: all other miners are starved of revenue, blocks slow down to a creep, difficulty lowers dramatically... and from there you can double-spend and purge transactions at will, making the system unsafe in private adversarial conditions & completely unreliable and unusable.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
“Putting energy into batteries is good. Therefore I declare that Bitcoin is a battery.”
Aside from not making sense, the economics of this don’t really work. Chips cost money. Bitcoin mining = wafer-thin margins. You can’t just keep adding hashrate... 1/
If everyone does this “battery” thing everywhere, it becomes unprofitable — for everyone. I.e. Profits are competed away and you spend $100k on chips with a lifetime expectation of earning <$100k worth of BTC. 2/
On resource consumption, Bitcoin Inc. is mostly just stringing together intellectual sleights of hand. Bitcoin chews up ~$20 billion per year of resources (waste chips as well as energy) at the current price ($50k) and block reward (6.25BTC) levels — it’s that simple. 3/
You don’t need a blockchain to use cryptographic signatures to provide high assurances on things. 1/
You don’t need a blockchain to have programmable money and contracts which execute automatically based on some external condition being fed into them. 2/
You don’t need a blockchain to have unique mp3s, FLACs, and artworks, with a personalised message embedded in the file, to you from the artist, cryptographically signed. 3/
Now we’re getting somewhere. You kill blockchains by breaking the incentives. Not sure the attack in this paper would be effective, but it’s where the vulnerability is.
1/
The goal of a sabotage attack is to upset the game theory, system-wide (not just miners), so that the whole thing falls apart of its own accord, in a decentralised way, via the spontaneous action of the individuals involved.
2/
The Bitcoin network is not a harmonious love-fuelled collective; it’s a disorganised body of ruthlessly self-interested and mutually distrustful individual actors. If the incentives are broken, Bitcoin is broken. Break the incentives, and you break Bitcoin.
3/
1. Ban Bitcoin commercially and describe in detail how and why it’s the tool of choice for violent criminal organisations, wealthy tax avoiders, child pornographers, scammers, ransomware operators, and other socially destructive actors.
@balajis 2. Announce a plan (completely out in the open) to attack the chain to destruction via mining—physically seizing mining ops, controlling supply chains, and manufacturing whatever else is necessary to get the job done.