📅 Original date posted:2015-11-05
📝 Original message:I'd also like to see some more formal analysis of the notion that "$10 in
the hand of 10 people is more than $50 in the hand of two, or $100 in the
hand of one". I think this encapsulates the security assumption on why we
want decentralization at all.
This is a very critical property bitcoin exploits for being able to
transact large amounts, among other things. (Closely related is the notion
that defecting will destroy all the value...)
--
@JeremyRubin <https://twitter.com/JeremyRubin>;
<https://twitter.com/JeremyRubin>;
On Thu, Nov 5, 2015 at 6:33 PM, Eric Voskuil via bitcoin-dev <
bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
> On 11/05/2015 03:03 PM, Adam Back via bitcoin-dev wrote:
> > ...
> > Validators: Economically dependent full nodes are an important part of
> > Bitcoin's security model because they assure Bitcoin security by
> > enforcing consensus rules. While full nodes do not have orphan
> > risk, we also dont want maliciously crafted blocks with pathological
> > validation cost to erode security by knocking reasonable spec full
> > nodes off the network on CPU (or bandwidth grounds).
> > ...
> > Validators vs Miner decentralisation balance:
> >
> > There is a tradeoff where we can tolerate weak miner decentralisation
> > if we can rely on good validator decentralisation or vice versa. But
> > both being weak is risky. Currently given mining centralisation
> > itself is weak, that makes validator decentralisation a critical
> > remaining defence - ie security depends more on validator
> > decentralisation than it would if mining decentralisation was in a
> > better shape.
>
> This side of the security model seems underappreciated, if not poorly
> understood. Weakening is not just occurring because of the proliferation
> of non-validating wallet software and centralized (web) wallets, but
> also centralized Bitcoin APIs.
>
> Over time developers tend to settle on a couple of API providers for a
> given problem. Bing and Google for search and mapping, for example. All
> applications and users of them, depending on an API service, reduce to a
> single validator. Imagine most Bitcoin applications built on the
> equivalent of Bing and Google.
>
> e
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> bitcoin-dev mailing list
> bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org
> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20151105/fcb5bbd4/attachment.html>;
Jeremy [ARCHIVE] /
npub1q8…8qwta
2023-06-07 17:44:12
in reply to nevent1q…dme9
Author Public Key
npub1q86n5vtxkwerzwfqza3hwls8pl8764244464talfqy2vpj0qaz6q38qwtaPublished at
2023-06-07 17:44:12Event JSON
{
"id": "54b3c43cab3980a226ca32a21edaeb137be2664ab851ba173391ef12128f7b53",
"pubkey": "01f53a3166b3b23139201763777e070fcfed5555ad7555f7e90114c0c9e0e8b4",
"created_at": 1686159852,
"kind": 1,
"tags": [
[
"e",
"9e81c8559b80ce00b0cc0d7a5a8866ede759916b4863c29f8f9d869f3a89d99f",
"",
"root"
],
[
"e",
"eb2ed8ff8fc99d8f612d29bbef21cc65e9c3531955ce7d8ea04c53f7169effbb",
"",
"reply"
],
[
"p",
"82205f272f995d9be742779a3c19a2ae08522ca14824c3a3b01525fb5459161e"
]
],
"content": "📅 Original date posted:2015-11-05\n📝 Original message:I'd also like to see some more formal analysis of the notion that \"$10 in\nthe hand of 10 people is more than $50 in the hand of two, or $100 in the\nhand of one\". I think this encapsulates the security assumption on why we\nwant decentralization at all.\n\nThis is a very critical property bitcoin exploits for being able to\ntransact large amounts, among other things. (Closely related is the notion\nthat defecting will destroy all the value...)\n\n\n\n\n--\n@JeremyRubin \u003chttps://twitter.com/JeremyRubin\u003e\n\u003chttps://twitter.com/JeremyRubin\u003e\n\nOn Thu, Nov 5, 2015 at 6:33 PM, Eric Voskuil via bitcoin-dev \u003c\nbitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org\u003e wrote:\n\n\u003e On 11/05/2015 03:03 PM, Adam Back via bitcoin-dev wrote:\n\u003e \u003e ...\n\u003e \u003e Validators: Economically dependent full nodes are an important part of\n\u003e \u003e Bitcoin's security model because they assure Bitcoin security by\n\u003e \u003e enforcing consensus rules. While full nodes do not have orphan\n\u003e \u003e risk, we also dont want maliciously crafted blocks with pathological\n\u003e \u003e validation cost to erode security by knocking reasonable spec full\n\u003e \u003e nodes off the network on CPU (or bandwidth grounds).\n\u003e \u003e ...\n\u003e \u003e Validators vs Miner decentralisation balance:\n\u003e \u003e\n\u003e \u003e There is a tradeoff where we can tolerate weak miner decentralisation\n\u003e \u003e if we can rely on good validator decentralisation or vice versa. But\n\u003e \u003e both being weak is risky. Currently given mining centralisation\n\u003e \u003e itself is weak, that makes validator decentralisation a critical\n\u003e \u003e remaining defence - ie security depends more on validator\n\u003e \u003e decentralisation than it would if mining decentralisation was in a\n\u003e \u003e better shape.\n\u003e\n\u003e This side of the security model seems underappreciated, if not poorly\n\u003e understood. Weakening is not just occurring because of the proliferation\n\u003e of non-validating wallet software and centralized (web) wallets, but\n\u003e also centralized Bitcoin APIs.\n\u003e\n\u003e Over time developers tend to settle on a couple of API providers for a\n\u003e given problem. Bing and Google for search and mapping, for example. All\n\u003e applications and users of them, depending on an API service, reduce to a\n\u003e single validator. Imagine most Bitcoin applications built on the\n\u003e equivalent of Bing and Google.\n\u003e\n\u003e e\n\u003e\n\u003e\n\u003e _______________________________________________\n\u003e bitcoin-dev mailing list\n\u003e bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org\n\u003e https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev\n\u003e\n\u003e\n-------------- next part --------------\nAn HTML attachment was scrubbed...\nURL: \u003chttp://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20151105/fcb5bbd4/attachment.html\u003e",
"sig": "82ee1913f0b0b021251b6c4a288dfd0b76842b4a57d7a82ef1c014fe26f5089923a73d4c5811a2a35825a0501f20fade2088499688dc8362cebe0eda777c28bd"
}