pull down to refresh
0 sats \ 3 replies \ @Scoresby OP 2h \ parent \ on: The part of Bitcoin you *have* to trust bitcoin
I have often felt that the real risk of a 51% attack is control of the network. For instance, a miner with greater than 51% of the hash rate can attempt to reorg out blocks that include transactions it doesn't like.
We might say that this would wreck the value of the coin, but imagine it was to reorg out transactions that were from widely disfavored groups: a ransomware gang or a militant islamic group that had released a bioweapon. Less dramatically, do we believe the ETFs and exchanges and treasury companies will give a care if a single miner gains 51% of the hashrate and reorgs out blocks that include OFAC sanctioned transactions?
It is either uncensorable and decentralized, or not Bitcoin. We have thousands of centrally controlled shitcoin blockchains that are worthless and useless.
reply
what keeps bitcoin from following my above description?
my only answer is the fee market.
But that only works if people are willing to pay the fees. If people do not want to pay extra fees for transactions a censor wishes to exclude from blocks, bitcoin very likely ends up with miner centralization.
reply
I see the opposite: any shady transaction can get inside a block if the sender pays enough fee directly to the willing miner. Regulatory capture of the miners to follow OFAC rules, then sanctions against certain countries, then individuals based on social rating? That is certainly against the ethos of Bitcoin. I will stop using it immediately if that happens. And dump all my coins.
reply