📅 Original date posted:2013-04-19
📝 Original message:On Fri, Apr 19, 2013 at 12:38 AM, John Dillon
<john.dillon892 at googlemail.com> wrote:
> I understand that Gavin has spent effort on security efforts against
> small-scale attackers. It's the fact that he is so dismissive of the
> threat that large attackers play that is what bothers me. But if I am
> being divisive I understand.
I cannot speak for Gavin, but speaking more generally, large attackers
tend to belong in a thought-class all their own.
Example 1: if some super-ASIC miner arises with 90% of hash power,
and he starts behaving in a way contrary to the useful functioning of
bitcoin, the community might decide to change the PoW algorithm at
block height N.
Example 2: If someone large DDoS's the entire P2P network, which is
possible, manual intervention would be required to straighten out the
mess.
In each case, it's more about the community's mutual defense actions
than any prepared defense.
Speaking even more generally, bitcoin may be a billion-dollar
invention, but that doesn't mean it has any funding for network
defense! Unless cost structures and user attitudes change,
development and deployment of major defense strategies seems unlikely.
Which implies the community will simply wait for a [attack |
explosion | crisis], and then hope we can unwind/repair the damage
afterwards.
--
Jeff Garzik
exMULTI, Inc.
jgarzik at exmulti.com
Jeff Garzik [ARCHIVE] /
npub1kf…f3f58
2023-06-07 11:47:14
in reply to nevent1q…jvny
Author Public Key
npub1kf0ppcjaguxekg24yx6smgxlu73qn0k8lm0t2wrqc0scpl7u3sgsmf3f58Published at
2023-06-07 11:47:14Event JSON
{
"id": "a1b5a3fa4a590157aadaba01a0a679fb0f7df87a48ed7db7bb1017517651a1a1",
"pubkey": "b25e10e25d470d9b215521b50da0dfe7a209bec7fedeb53860c3e180ffdc8c11",
"created_at": 1686138434,
"kind": 1,
"tags": [
[
"e",
"3fcd79b1ede664ebbdecb2022e12316401553d8fac5d552c27e9efefd1d08943",
"",
"root"
],
[
"e",
"07514bfb8abb5c00acd71dcc23363f5f42a479fd06da435041dec636a1b3d8bc",
"",
"reply"
],
[
"p",
"a0b592adfee20cad7bb28c238a9fc1fccf4511a458be8e3d96b00c914c8c3564"
]
],
"content": "📅 Original date posted:2013-04-19\n📝 Original message:On Fri, Apr 19, 2013 at 12:38 AM, John Dillon\n\u003cjohn.dillon892 at googlemail.com\u003e wrote:\n\u003e I understand that Gavin has spent effort on security efforts against\n\u003e small-scale attackers. It's the fact that he is so dismissive of the\n\u003e threat that large attackers play that is what bothers me. But if I am\n\u003e being divisive I understand.\n\nI cannot speak for Gavin, but speaking more generally, large attackers\ntend to belong in a thought-class all their own.\n\nExample 1: if some super-ASIC miner arises with 90% of hash power,\nand he starts behaving in a way contrary to the useful functioning of\nbitcoin, the community might decide to change the PoW algorithm at\nblock height N.\n\nExample 2: If someone large DDoS's the entire P2P network, which is\npossible, manual intervention would be required to straighten out the\nmess.\n\nIn each case, it's more about the community's mutual defense actions\nthan any prepared defense.\n\nSpeaking even more generally, bitcoin may be a billion-dollar\ninvention, but that doesn't mean it has any funding for network\ndefense! Unless cost structures and user attitudes change,\ndevelopment and deployment of major defense strategies seems unlikely.\n Which implies the community will simply wait for a [attack |\nexplosion | crisis], and then hope we can unwind/repair the damage\nafterwards.\n\n-- \nJeff Garzik\nexMULTI, Inc.\njgarzik at exmulti.com",
"sig": "d29051b47575058cb612abdb6347370106109e7d08a2829a01c09dc9966f42b7194e748261103db00042273f681d401ffbf735585e1c104b60000bb007bd6b73"
}