Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Sabotaging Bitcoin

blog.dshr.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

141–150 of 224 posts

Re: Sabotaging Bitcoin

#141

Post by palata »

copirate wrote: post #137
palata wrote: post #134

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Starting earlier doesn't give you any advantage It's a race. Starting earlier obviously gives an advantage?!

No it's not a race, it's a lottery. It would be like saying you've an edge if you start earlier at the roulette.

I think you're confused.

In a lottery, the more tickets you buy, the higher your chances to have the winning number.

If we played with a roulette and said "the goal is to be the first to have a winning number at the roulette" and I could try 50 times before you started, obviously I would be more likely to win our game, wouldn't I?

Re: Sabotaging Bitcoin

#143

Post by copirate »

palata wrote: post #141
copirate wrote: post #137

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No it's not a race, it's a lottery. It would be like saying you've an edge if you start earlier at the roulette.

I think you're confused. In a lottery, the more tickets you buy, the higher your chances to have the winning number. If we played with a roulette and said "the goal is to be the first to have a winning number at the roulette" and I could try 50 times before you started, obviously I would be more likely to win our game, wouldn't I?

> In a lottery, the more tickets you buy, the higher your chances to have the winning number.

Yes, and it's exactly the same in bitcoin with the hashing power. Each hash is a ticket.

> If we played with a roulette and said "the goal is to be the first to have a winning number at the roulette" and I can try 50 times before you start, obviously I am more likely to win our game, am I not?

In bitcoin the goal is not to be the first. The goal is to find a winning hash that's on a chain that will not be abandoned. As soon as a new block is propagated you start mining on the new head. It doesn't change anything that you previously worked on another chain. The time spent on the previous chain is not wasted, unless finding a block wouldn't have got you the reward.

There is a kind of a race if 2 blocks are found simultaneously. But that's not really what this discussion is about, and in this case the outcome depends mostly on network connectivity.

Re: Sabotaging Bitcoin

#144

Post by Saline9515 »

mrb wrote: post #105
free_bip wrote: post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How are you so confident that it will never weaken? Especially since there will come a time when the block reward is literally 0.

Tx fees make up a bigger and bigger fraction of miner rewards over time.

Rewards decrease due to halving and there is no guarantee that transaction fees will compensate it.

Re: Sabotaging Bitcoin

#145

Post by palata »

copirate wrote: post #143
palata wrote: post #141

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think you're confused. In a lottery, the more tickets you buy, the higher your chances to have the winning number. If we played with a roulette and said "the goal is to be the first to have a winning number at the roulette" and I could try 50 times before you started, obviously I would be more likely to win our game, wouldn't I?

> In a lottery, the more tickets you buy, the higher your chances to have the winning number. Yes, and it's exactly the same in bitcoin with the hashing power. Each hash is a ticket. > If we played with a roulette and said "the goal is to be the first to have a winning number at the roulette" and I can try 50 times before you start, obviously I am more likely to win our game, am I not? In bitcoin the goal is not to b…

It is precisely what this discussion is about. From the article:

> The key idea behind this strategy, called Selfish Mining, is for a pool to keep its discovered blocks private, thereby intentionally forking the chain. The honest nodes continue to mine on the public chain, while the pool mines on its own private branch. If the pool discovers more blocks, it develops a longer lead on the public chain, and continues to keep these new blocks private. When the public branch approaches the pool's private branch in length, the selfish miners reveal blocks from their private chain to the public.

> In bitcoin the goal is not to be the first. The goal is to find a winning hash that's on a chain that will not be abandoned.

The goal is to be the first (or very close to the first), because it makes it much more likely that your chain will not be abandoned. If you wait 2 days before you reveal your block, obviously it will be abandoned...

Re: Sabotaging Bitcoin

#146

Post by beenBoutIT »

D13Fd wrote: post #43
bujkopl wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Since when is incentivizing low cost renewable energy horrifying?

Because every unit of electricity causes climate change and burns resources (even renewable sources of electricity - they just burn them slower). From a societal point of view we are dumping huge amounts of electricity and resources into a hole to accomplish nothing that couldn’t be accomplished with a database and a trusted third party at a billionth of the cost (or less). The vast majority of transactions are specu…

In the long run BTC as a universal digital global currency will be more efficient than the fiat currencies it replaces.

Re: Sabotaging Bitcoin

#147

Post by beenBoutIT »

oofbey wrote: post #70
Zaskoda wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What this site does not show is how much of the power used to maintain the network is waste power such as gas that's normally burned off at the well site or hydro electric that goes to waste. Unlike AI, there's a strong incentive to find the cheapest electricity possible. Because that's what everyone else is doing. With Bitcoin, you now exactly what your costs are and what your yields are. There's a clear threshold,…

BTC enthusiasts have very creative arguments for why their currency isn’t the a complete disaster for the climate. Like pointing fingers.

The good that BTC will do in the long run is worth the investment. Civilization getting out from under fiat currencies - once and for all - is a massive step in the right direction.

Re: Sabotaging Bitcoin

#148

Post by beenBoutIT »

UltraSane wrote: post #77
beenBoutIT wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

An interesting point is that any nation state or corporation can focus resources on either AI or BTC, but not both at the same time. BTC is a sure bet in the long run while AI is potentially capable of delivering a faster ROI with no hard guarantees. As BTC FOMO hits every country on Earth it's likely that AI will take a 100+ year backseat to massive state sponsored BTC operations. It's not hard to imagine a situatio…

"BTC is a sure bet in the long run " 7 transactions per second is NOT a sure bet.

At 7 TSP BTC is far more fungible than Gold.

Re: Sabotaging Bitcoin

#149

Post by tommek4077 »

johnnienaked wrote: post #109
onion2k wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not really, but the difference is that I'm limited by the supply of BTC, and it requires that I actually have the money to make the 'bet' at the start. That restricts the size of the spot market. If I'm buying futures I can enter into a contract that says "I'll buy a contract for 1BTC that says BTC is going to go from $88.5k to $98.5k in 1 year." I don't actually hand over any money. In a year's time, if BTC is…

It's very wrong. Futures contracts on traditional exchanges have no counterparty risk and require the deposit of a significant amount of upfront capital as collateral. If the spot price of the underlying moves in either direction, debits or credits are made to and from each margin account and if you don't have the money to cover a margin call, the contract gets closed.

Future markets give traders leverage of 100x sometimes or more. Margin requirements are much lower than trading spot.

Re: Sabotaging Bitcoin

#150

Post by copirate »

palata wrote: post #138
copirate wrote: post #123

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But the time spent by B is not wasted. If they find a block between minute 1 and 2, their block will be accepted, and A just lose the reward of the block they found.

When you reveal a block, it's not accepted instantaneously. When two competing blocks are revealed "roughly at the same time", it ends up in two competing chains. If B finds a block between minute 1 and 2, they start working on their competing chain, but A is already working on theirs. And A had a headstart because it started working on it somewhere between minute 1. So it's more likely that A's fork wins the race in…

But the head start doesn't change anything. At this point A is mining on their block, B is mining on theirs. There's no advantage.

I'd even say that B is slightly more likely to keep their reward because they started propagating their block earlier, so it's more likely other miners are mining on this block.

If A finds a second block between minute 1 and 2, then they win, but it would be the same if the didn't withhold their block.

When A is mining on their hidden block, they mine for a potential height of 2 that would win against a miner only able to push a height of 1. But by doing that they put the block they found at risk of being abandoned because another miner found a block in the meantime.

So if you find a block, you get almost 100% chance it'll stay if you publish it immediately. If you withhold it and find another one you get 100% chance of keeping your 2 blocks. If you don't find that 2nd one, you get <50% chance of your block to be the main chain (depending on time of reaction of another block being published, and connectivity). On the other hand, if you don't withhold it and find 2 blocks in a row, you also get almost 100% chance of keeping your 2 blocks. I fail to see how withholding is profitable.

Post reply on HN