MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <CANQHGB1N4E9=cqrkxDiUH5hAHgzURAJv+S7Vkf8xWEMJ=+T_AQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <KVDgWlVOrIW9ahW8jA8W1eSK-w0OzVEjx585MpJiNL-SuX9x-td_VzNEtFSDNj-bwulh_nLExtNBl4WD6x2Ipjp9bQvT4Jo3NIqoyDxoBBM=@protonmail.com>
 <CALL-=e7hHYm96KJEFEiTgEaSjK0VTcNcGypLVekmaxYNN+egEA@mail.gmail.com>
 <G3RgofdarOhSiEJjyDNaN2Dv27WCpb_0CSOpya6acUnPbpPQ-oygklpP_e0rLdxglK5FCo5dq7Qkv6GinA3qCXiOM6GzEcNvcxxM7kbwFhY=@protonmail.com>
 <CALL-=e6deZdsA+LLWBXJwYDf9x2x4sRxC1s=8fb2wH1paXpMBA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAGpPWDYJHP1WsJA9Rymb3GwMomCipVV7UV_eSVb_g-DbBkw32w@mail.gmail.com>
 <CALL-=e5BKBBkw3EkeYhHgzvEBuRdOOS1QnXpwh5qF1J6TEK3Hw@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CALL-=e5BKBBkw3EkeYhHgzvEBuRdOOS1QnXpwh5qF1J6TEK3Hw@mail.gmail.com>
From: Billy Tetrud <billy.tetrud@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 24 May 2021 22:01:07 -1000
Message-ID: <CAGpPWDbDg+N72ce8ird_A_=vY-DHP87E+WCH-d40MnWasbk-6g@mail.gmail.com>
To: Karl <gmkarl@gmail.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000a1b76b05c322ee2d"
Cc: Bitcoin Protocol Discussion <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Reducing block reward via soft fork
Precedence: list

--000000000000a1b76b05c322ee2d
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"

>  It seems to me bitcoin's biggest vulnerabilities are either covert
compromise of mining pool operations, or widespread compromise of networked
mining systems and client node

Stratum v2 will solve the mining pool problem. Widespread compromise of
mining systems seems far fetched. That would involve compromising hundreds
of thousands or perhaps millions of systems in disparate areas with
disparate operating systems and security procedures, run by people who
probably understand computer security better than most (given their
involvement in bitcoin).

I think the biggest vulnerability bitcoin has is a sybil attack draining
the resources of public full nodes. We only have like 10,000 public full
nodes serving the whole network. It wouldn't take that much money to create
a sybil botnet of 100,000 or 1 million nodes that connect to the bitcoin
network and simply take up public node resources, denying service to most
people's full nodes.

> I don't see why it would necessarily be made public if a government
compromised their nation's mining farms. Governments have skilled
operatives for things like that.

Skilled operatives have their limits. It could be kept secret if spies were
hired as employees and then systematically infected all the machines in a
mining operation's machines. But spies aren't magic, no matter how skilled.
One mistake and the jig is up. It would be more likely to be a backroom
deal, which would be harder to keep secret, especially in large operations.
Propaganda has its limits too, sure you could convince some people things
are fine, but sophisticated people like miners? I doubt it.


On Mon, May 24, 2021 at 2:55 PM Karl <gmkarl@gmail.com> wrote:

> If bitcoin were to ever consider changing their PoW algorithm a
> little, it seems that would immediately make purchased ASIC mining
> equipment partially or wholly unusable to compromise the chain (and
> temporarily reduce energy usage without necessarily reducing
> security).  One possible plan to deter a multibillionaire attack.
>
> Also regarding the word "security" here, a 51% attack impacts some
> parts of chain operations, but not others.
>
> It seems to me bitcoin's biggest vulnerabilities are either covert
> compromise of mining pool operations, or widespread compromise of
> networked mining systems and client nodes.  Far easier than
> outcompeting the mining network with hardware.
>
> I don't see why it would necessarily be made public if a government
> compromised their nation's mining farms.  Governments have skilled
> operatives for things like that.  People would guess it happened, and
> the government would cover up the guesses with more powerful stories.
>

--000000000000a1b76b05c322ee2d
Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<div dir=3D"ltr">&gt;=C2=A0

It seems to me bitcoin&#39;s biggest vulnerabilities are either covert comp=
romise of mining pool operations, or widespread compromise of networked min=
ing systems and client node<div><br></div><div>Stratum v2 will solve the mi=
ning pool problem. Widespread compromise of mining=C2=A0systems seems far f=
etched. That would involve compromising hundreds of thousands or perhaps mi=
llions of systems in disparate areas with disparate operating systems and s=
ecurity procedures,=C2=A0run=C2=A0by people who probably understand compute=
r security better than most (given their involvement in bitcoin).=C2=A0</di=
v><div><br></div><div>I think the biggest vulnerability bitcoin has is a sy=
bil attack draining the resources of public full nodes. We only have like 1=
0,000 public=C2=A0full nodes serving the whole network. It wouldn&#39;t tak=
e that much money to create a sybil botnet of 100,000 or 1 million nodes th=
at connect to the bitcoin network and simply take up public node resources,=
 denying service to most people&#39;s full nodes.=C2=A0</div><div><br></div=
><div>&gt; I don&#39;t see why it would necessarily be made public if a gov=
ernment compromised their nation&#39;s mining farms. Governments have skill=
ed operatives for things like that.=C2=A0=C2=A0</div><div><br></div><div>Sk=
illed operatives have their limits. It could be kept secret if spies were h=
ired as employees and then systematically infected all the machines in a mi=
ning operation&#39;s=C2=A0machines. But spies aren&#39;t magic, no matter h=
ow skilled. One mistake and the jig is up. It would be more likely to be a =
backroom deal, which would be harder to keep secret, especially in large op=
erations. Propaganda has its limits too, sure you could convince some peopl=
e things are fine, but sophisticated people like miners? I doubt it.=C2=A0<=
/div><div><div><br></div><div><br></div></div></div><br><div class=3D"gmail=
_quote"><div dir=3D"ltr" class=3D"gmail_attr">On Mon, May 24, 2021 at 2:55 =
PM Karl &lt;<a href=3D"mailto:gmkarl@gmail.com" target=3D"_blank">gmkarl@gm=
ail.com</a>&gt; wrote:<br></div><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"=
margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-lef=
t:1ex">If bitcoin were to ever consider changing their PoW algorithm a<br>
little, it seems that would immediately make purchased ASIC mining<br>
equipment partially or wholly unusable to compromise the chain (and<br>
temporarily reduce energy usage without necessarily reducing<br>
security).=C2=A0 One possible plan to deter a multibillionaire attack.<br>
<br>
Also regarding the word &quot;security&quot; here, a 51% attack impacts som=
e<br>
parts of chain operations, but not others.<br>
<br>
It seems to me bitcoin&#39;s biggest vulnerabilities are either covert<br>
compromise of mining pool operations, or widespread compromise of<br>
networked mining systems and client nodes.=C2=A0 Far easier than<br>
outcompeting the mining network with hardware.<br>
<br>
I don&#39;t see why it would necessarily be made public if a government<br>
compromised their nation&#39;s mining farms.=C2=A0 Governments have skilled=
<br>
operatives for things like that.=C2=A0 People would guess it happened, and<=
br>
the government would cover up the guesses with more powerful stories.<br>
</blockquote></div>

--000000000000a1b76b05c322ee2d--