pull down to refresh

If you're venturing into the world of technical Bitcoin literature, "Bitcoin: A Game Theoretic Analysis" by Professor Micah Warren is a significant addition to your reading list. However, tread cautiously; this is a graduate-level textbook. Literally.
It delves into the vulnerabilities and potential failure points of Bitcoin. Offering a broad, but incomplete, exploration of the dynamics shaping Bitcoin's failure scenarios.
Professor Micah Warren, a seasoned expert in Game Theory, and a former Bitcoin holder, approaches the subject in good faith and with an adversarial mindset. The book raises critical questions about potential failure scenarios for Bitcoin, drawing on a wealth of technical knowledge cited from over 55 academic papers.
The heart of the book revolves around a pivotal question: if Bitcoin were to fail, what are the most likely failure modes?
Yet, there are areas where the analysis falls short, lacking specificity in potential mitigations to the vulnerabilities identified. Often relying on speculation, this book is akin to a good game of checkers, but not a full game of chess. It's scenarios typically think only one step ahead, not several.
In any case, the full scope of Bitcoin's game theory was not captured in this book. Though it was well snapshot, assuming a static state. Which is a problem, since Bitcoin is not static, but rather dynamic and evolving. To the authors credit, the book does acknowledge this limitation several times.
Interestingly enough, there was also an interview with Professor Micah discussing this book with several interesting people. Noteworthy contributors, included Matthew Pines, Bennett Tomlin, and Matthias Venturine. All with interesting backgrounds and affiliations.
During this interview, the moderator asks a question specifically mentioning the deep state and Bitcoin. This question and the panelists themselves conjured the following interesting thought.
If the deep state were to commission a study on Bitcoin and it's vulnerabilities, a professor of game theory would be a good place to start. And this book is exactly the kind that would be written from such a commission. From that perspective, I like to think of this book as the general state of awareness of Bitcoin's game theory and vulnerabilities. It could even be the deep states red team playbook.
In any case, the book explores key aspects of Bitcoin, from its consensus mechanism to the potential threats of selfish mining, strategic mining, block withholding, Mining Pool bribes, Petty Compliant Mining, 51% attacks, 33% attacks, 64% attacks, OFAC compliant mining and more.
The first half of the book meticulously examines Bitcoin's vulnerabilities, With a heavy dose of math and a primer on Bitcoin basics, the focus is mainly on the mining aspect of Bitcoin. While the technical intricacies of mining take center stage, the book occasionally touches on nodes but lacks the same emphasis given to miners. Which in my view is an oversight, since Bitcoin nodes are what secure Bitcoin to a large degree, and enfranchises it's users.
The second half of the book explores Bitcoin as a socio-technical system, delving into the interplay between human beliefs and the instantiation of these beliefs in the form of a software protocol. The discussion extends to potential coalitions forming within the network, considering threats from corporations, financial institutions, and nation-states.
The book also examines the halving schedule, its impact on the cost of production, and the potential positive feedback loop in Bitcoin's value. The discussion acknowledges the complexity of predicting Bitcoin's value, considering factors such as market demand, adoption, regulatory developments, and macroeconomic conditions. A critical analysis also examines the utopian scenario outlined by many as hyperbitcoinization. But often it leaves out the dynamics of second and third layers like the lightning network.
In conclusion, "Bitcoin: A Game Theoretic Analysis" serves as a significant contribution to the understanding of Bitcoin's vulnerabilities. But, concerning nodes and the lightning network, it misses much. It is an especially good book for a more advanced audience well-versed in game theory and Bitcoin's technical intricacies. While the book may leave some questions unanswered and scenarios underexplored, its emphasis on adversarial thinking and academic rigor makes it a valuable addition to the literature on Bitcoin's security landscape.
I recommend anyone on Bitcoin's blue team to first critically watch the interview above, and then seriously consider reading this book. The book gets a lot wrong, but it also gets some things right and introduced several lesser known vulnerable-Bitcoin scenario's worth knowing.
From this perspective, it's a great thought exercise for the technically minded Bitcoiner looking out for Bitcoin's future.
If you're on Bitcoin's Blue team, please take some time on this one. It's worth reading.
Thanks for bringing this up, this kind of shit is my heroin.
The book gets a lot wrong, but it also gets some things right and introduced several lesser known vulnerable-Bitcoin scenario's worth knowing.
You mention a couple of things that you would have liked to see covered in more depth, but based on your summary I can't figure out what this book gets "a lot wrong." Can you expand on that criticism?
reply
A lot of it was the framing of the scenario's as dire, without mitigations.
Details on how negative scenario's are achieved practically by attackers was also lacking in some cases. So in some cases you're hand waved into some of these negative scenarios, without any detail on how they were achieved in the first place, or the fact that lightning and layer 2 solutions may make such attacks moot.
So a lot is assumed up front, mainly that the Bitcoin ecosystem being static and non responsive to attacks. Which I don't agree with.
Here's one random quote that I disagree with for example "If Bitcoin has a security budget issue so serious that corporations are considering stepping up to protect the network, it would appear the incentives are broken"
I mean to me this statement seems self evidently contradictory.
Another opinion stated as fact by the author
"Thus the only way Bitcoin can function to preserve value is if the price goes up forever, which clearly it cannot do and does not do."
first i disagree with the framing that bitcoin need to keep going up forever for it to preserve value. second i disagree that it can't go up forever, nor do i think that its clear that it does not do this.
"if a persistent 51% attack on the network occurs, an economic predominance may find that the only acceptable solution is to defer to a leader or group of leaders...Bitcoin should be governed by some central authority. Once centralization becomes inevitable, more parties will be able to use it without fear of certain risks, and growth will continue..."
LMFAO ^ that pretty much showcases the mindset of the author is some respects, and it's not hard to guess that I totally disagree.
"...Centralization is by far the most bullish case and goes hand in hand with an up only general philosophy about Bitcoin"
Just no.
reply
Huh. We're getting very different readings from this.
LMFAO ^ that pretty much showcases the mindset of the author is some respects, and it's not hard to guess that I totally disagree.
Here's the last couple quotes you provided, with more context:
Bitcoin could become overtly centralized. There are many paths that could lead to this. [...] If a persistent 51 % attack on the network occurs, an economic predominance may find that the only acceptable solution is to defer to a leader or group of leaders. [...] Once this occurs, the network may discover most things continue to work well, and may begin to build a governance model around the leader. [...] Recalling that many parties may be indifferent to centralization, the threat of attack will not scare these parties out of Bitcoin. [... O]ver time the preponderance of economic activity could be undertaken by those who are indifferent to centralization. [...] this could snowball into an understanding held among the larger players that to continue to operate securely and with the widest participation, Bitcoin should be governed by some central authority. Once centralization becomes inevitable, more parties will be able to use it without fear of certain risks, and growth will continue. [...] Centralization is by far the most bullish case and goes hand-in-hand with an “up only” general philosophy about Bitcoin."
My summary:
  • Different attacks could be mitigated with centralization.
This is almost tautologically true, as the attackers are likely to be nation-states themselves.
  • Once centralized, the network may continue to "work well" for the use cases most people care about.
  • Some hardcore bitcoiners will find this unsatisfactory and leave; others may remain, perhaps even most users.
In the scenario being entertained, btc has found broad use. As we already know today, most people in the world don't care about the same issues bitcoiners care about. A more centralized / censored version of the network may very well not upset the masses overmuch, especially given the opposition that might be brought to bear.
  • Using the "sanitized" version of btc eliminates a host of risks and uncertainties, so many people might prefer it, adding a feedback loop to the network effect.
I find this a plausible scenario. Just because I don't want it to happen doesn't mean that the logic is unsound. From watching the talk, and skimming some parts of the book, I haven't detected anything about the author's mindset that I take issue with.
He puts it very well here:
[A]lmost the only thing certain about Bitcoin’s future is uncertainty. A continued “up only” trajectory will eventually lead to either speculative attack or attempts to capture or centralize the protocol. At this point the Schelling point provided by Nakamoto consensus could be challenged. How one feels Bitcoin will navigate this determines how one will treat Bitcoin leading up to this, and how people in aggregate feel Bitcoin will navigate this will determine the behavior of Bitcoin.
How people react to these forces that unfold will have everything to do with how btc evolves, whether it's the semi-centralized version described above, or something else. I don't get the author as advocating for any particular thing, just pointing out the possibilities.
I really like what I've read, I'm grateful to you for pointing it out. Definitely the most rigorous reasoning I've ever seen on these dynamics.
reply
It is a very challenging book, worthy of your time. And I don't disagree with you or the authors points here at face value.
But often he leans this way towards speculative thinking around centralization being a "good thing" for Bitcoin in terms of NGU/stability (these are besides the point of Bitcoin imo, but do help). To such a degree that it's hard to not take much of what he says as sub-textual advocation for such things .
reply
what a good question to answer over coffee. brb.
reply
What do you see as the biggest threat to bitcoin currently?
reply
complacency.
over confidence.
Dev circle jerk tinkering for the sake of it without considering consequences.
assertions like "Bitcoin is for everyone" without caveats or nuance.
Twitter limiting character sizes, rendering discourse moot and degrading attention spans.
reply
Interesting, these are all kinda social issues.
These state attacks will likely create more focus & remind us of what 'permissionless' means. But we will see
reply
Bitcoin culture matters a lot more than you may think.
If people don't understand the importance of running Bitcoin, and the why of it, the logic and principles embedded in that action, we are at risk of being watered down to greater centralization over a long time frame.
It's about keeping that flame alive and burning bright.
The Bitcoin Ideal.
Bitcoin is THE social issue.
You fundamentally need people running Bitcoin for Bitcoin to run.
And ideally knowing How, and Why.
reply
21 sats \ 1 reply \ @OT 26 Nov 2023
Yes Sir!
BTW, I was surprised a little at the end most had no bitcoin. Interesting to find people like this who seem to know a few things about how it works, but leave it at that. Must be an academic thing. All theories
reply
It may also be a conflict of interest for them to be holding Bitcoin, so many of these professional types divest themselves of the asset before they feel they can pontificate about it without being financially compromised. By doing this they can claim less bias influencing their arguments, which is fair. They're trying to be neutral. high integrity move.
Re the attack that allows a 35% pool to get 36-37% by hiding blocks... Does anyone know if that 36-37% EV takes into account the risk of losing the block?
reply
I'm a third of the way through the video -- it's deeply annoying how clueless the moderator of the discussion is. So typical of academics I encounter, who have no clue about the relevant topic, they haven't read the book / paper / work of the person whose discussion they're meant to be moderating, and they even seem proud of their cluelessness:
~"Mattheus, you study something like that, I think. Or maybe you don't." Argh.
Not a criticism of the book, rather a criticism of dipshits, who are as numberless as the sands and stars. The other panelists are well-reasoned and informed, though, so the thing is worth watching.
reply
This video summarizes Micah's views without having an annoyingly clueless moderator: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fiqHc6VCBbA
reply
thanks for posting this!
reply
about 2/3rd of the way through this interview...and I'm not really impressed.
A more recent video that was quite fun to watch. https://youtu.be/5f9s7HibZj8
Joe points out some flaws in his thinking, e.g. the decreasing incentives to selfish-mine as the block subsidy decreases. Also, on the econ side, Micah doesn't seem to appreciate the role of money as a SoV and would rather see it 'invested', which goes against the Austrian view that 'uninvested' money becomes more valuable for investing where / when better opportunities arise.
reply
Thanks for this, I'll give it a watch!
reply
0 sats \ 0 replies \ @nym 19 Oct
I've always been interested in the long-term game theory of the decreasing block subsidy and how it will effect the economics of Bitcoin over time. I think it is a good thing, just a curious observer.
reply
I don't blame you, even some of the panelists are a little off with their answers.
reply
Micah sold his corn..?
deleted by author
reply
There is a preview on google books of the first 2 chapters fyi. im sure someone will pirate it eventually. https://books.google.ca/books?id=hL-oEAAAQBAJ&pg=PT61&cad=1#v=onepage&q&f=false
reply
deleted by author
reply
reply
deleted by author
reply
deleted by author
reply
deleted by author
reply
Ofc 😇
reply
deleted by author
reply
So nice you had to delete it before I got a chance to see it...
reply
deleted by author
reply
Thank you! I need to learn how to send private messages via LN.