pull down to refresh
255 sats \ 3 replies \ @nullcount 11 Jun \ on: Will Bitcoin Follow the Internet's Path to Practical Centralization? AskSN
The term "sovereign" implies having the highest power within a specific domain or territory. The Bitcoin protocol gives sovereignty to anyone who manages to sign a transaction with a private key and include that tx into a block using their own node and hashrate to mine the block.
How sovereign are you really when you don't have at least an exahash worth of ASICs to ensure your transactions are mined in a timely manner?
How sovereign are you really if your wallet isn't using your own node to broadcast your txns?
How sovereign do YOU really want to become with respect to your money?
Maybe you care about sovereignty and go all the way, self-custody, run a node, start a mining farm, etc. That's great!
Now, consider how sovereign are you really when your Tor node is unreachable at the checkout line in Steak and Shake? Or your mining farm is making you poor because your electricity isn't free. Or, Satoshi forbid, you lost your private keys!
Just because you HAD the highest power attainable by using BTC, does not mean you get to actually keep that power, or even exercise that power. There is tremendous responsibility associated with holding this power and wielding it practically in your everyday dealings.
Most of us have a job and responsibilities already and don't want to (or can't afford to) become the "highest power" with respect to the infrastructure that backs our money. And frankly, nobody should have to take on additional responsibilities to start using better money. The best money should "just work". The more you need to understand to use the money, the worse it is at truly being a medium of exchange.
It doesn't matter how "hard" you work. Or how wrinkly your brain is. Nobody gives a shit if you're "actually smart". People only care about results.
If the "result" of using LLMs is that you write better emails, then, no, you're not getting dumber. You're getting better at communication.
If the "result" of using LLMs is that you back your arguments with appeals to authority, i.e. "I'm right because GPT said so" (a logical fallacy), then maybe you are getting dumber.
"Computers are a bicycle for the mind" -- Steve Jobs
If the result of using a bike is traveling faster, and you use that result to go to more places and get more cardio, then a bike is making you healthier.
If the result of using a bike is traveling faster, and you use that result to avoid cardio and "waste" any time that you've saved while traveling, then a bike may be making you sicker.
One of the earliest critiques of new information technology comes from a myth written by Plato:
"This invention [written language] will produce forgetfulness in the minds of those who learn to use it, because they will not practice their memory. Their trust in writing, produced by external characters which are no part of themselves, will discourage the use of their own memory within them."
— Plato, Phaedrus
Large Language Models are part of the next technological evolution of human language.
Spoken words enable people to transmit information in real-time.
Written words enable people to transmit information into the future, without relying on human memory.
LLMs enable transmission of information into the future, without relying on human memory, AND without requiring another human to assimilate the information verbatim.
The result of written language may have "weakened" our ability to memorize. Just like LLMs may weaken our ability to assimilate information. But the result of writing means people can "record" more information than they could without. And the result of LLMs means we can assimilate more information than ever before.
Ask strangers to take a photo of you. Most people will happily assist even if they're in their phone bubble.
The photo doesn't have to be anything special. The point is to start an interaction and break their frame long enough to focus on you (without being a jerk).
When you check the photo ask a question, give a complement, or share something about yourself.
Ask to take a selfie with them. If they ask, "why?", just say "I want to capture the moment I made a new friend".
Follow up with another question, complement or story to continue, or take the opportunity to leave on a high note.
In your scenario, transaction fees must rise because the network is willing to pay to maintain the security budget.
Here's another scenario... transaction fees stay low, even below the security budget, because the ecosystem has evolved to withstand occasional attacks, and participants are not willing to bear the cost of high transaction fees.
This scenario actually describes the Bitcoin Testnet pretty well. Sure, testnet is always getting re-org or 51% attacked. Its inconvenient, unpredictable, and sometimes unusable. But for the most part, transactions still get processed, and txns that have thousands of confirmations are still extremely unlikely to get undone.
The testnet3 lightning network is surprisingly robust: https://mempool.space/testnet/lightning/nodes/rankings/liquidity
Just because BTC has never successfully been attacked like this, does not mean it is so fragile that it will die if an attack ever does succeed.
There are ways for you to guard yourself in an environment where BTC is suffering from attacks:
- Increase the number of confs before you consider your onchain txns "final"
- Use off-chain protocols that "anchor" periodically to the chain
Owning a LN channel that has been open for +100,000 blocks is probably a good investment in either scenario.
I prefer to have only enough hashrate to heat my living/work spaces.
Corporate megamines can't compete when you're mining for heat. The heatpunks are not so sensitive to price of electric. They will still add hashrate even as they're losing sats due to unprofitability because the "waste" heat is what they're mining for. This trend will absolutely devastate the bottom line of for-profit miners long-term.
Hashing proportional to one's stack is less achievable and is based on altruism if you're doing it unprofitably just for the sake of reaching an arbitrary hashrate target.
IDK if I would like to see Saylor and Blackrock control that much hashrate :)
People tolerate government because they like the idea that there's an "adult in the room" with due authority to tell them how to act. Its the same reason people like to theorize conspiracies. It helps maintain the illusion that there's order and planners with a purpose in this otherwise chaotic universe without meaning. Voting is an illusion of power "given" to people. Power is never given away. Power can only "step down" leaving a vacuum for another power to take over. Authority, however, is given. Voting is a humiliation ritual of giving authority over your own life to some politician or democratic outcome.
People tend to riot and protest if they can't vote (or be attacked by foreign powers trying to "spread democracy"). Voting is a pacifier, there is no substance beyond that. The powerful aren't giving away their power to a vote. They rule regardless of what government system is used to keep their people docile.
Democracy is tyranny of the majority and the majority are... retarded
If voting costs money, then that democracy will just vote to give themselves money even faster than they currently do.
if most average bitcoiners running nodes get blocked, those others that just use it without a node could send tx to other nodes not respecting the consensus rules
Ok, let's Assume every node on the BTC network is unreachable. However, there is now an attacker node (or many attacker nodes) which are identical to BTC except for one consensus critical difference, that makes it a shitcoin.
If I send a BTC tx to one of these new altcoin nodes, it may or may not be accepted. Depends on the degree to which these new nodes disagree with the BTC consensus and whether my tx falls within consensus of the altcoin chain.
Best case, the altcoin nodes rejects any txn that would have been valid on BTC.
Worst case, Maybe lots of people were fooled into selling their goods and services for a shitcoin. Once BTC nodes come back online and the attack ends, they realize they "lost BTC" that was paid to them during the attack. In reality, they never received any BTC, only shitcoins. Maybe these people got ripped off so hard that they want to keep using the altcoin just so they "keep their money". Meanwhile those that spent their coins during the attack, only spent shitcoin. Their BTC never changed address.
BTC still exists during the attack, it just has no nodes adding new blocks to the BTC chain or forwarding txns to miners. In the scenario you describe, every node is just blocked, but their historical data is in tact, funds are SAFU.
The source code of BTC implementations also still exists so people could compare the types of txns included in the new altcoin nodes and identify any that would be breaking consensus of BTC.
This kind of attack would be extremely obvious to everyone. Its also extremely unlikely to work since attackers need nearly every node to go offline and stay offline long enough to somehow trick wallet developers, exchanges, block explorers, miners, and other industry leaders to use their new altcoin nodes in order to trick customers who don't run their own node.
would be a war with the state, blackrock saylor wanting the miners to follow their consensus rules
IDK, these players all have significant "investments" in BTC. Seems like they have a lot to lose by trying to change consensus and being targeted as an attacker. BTC is not proof-of-stake, owning lots of the token does not give you more control over the network. If anything, it puts you at the will of the network... if every bitcoiner wanted to make saylor's stack worthless, they could just decide to make his coins unspendable. Either by refusing to relay any tx which spends his coin, or changing consensus to disallow it at the block level.
I think the best course of action in this scenario would be to just wait it out and do what you can to bring your own BTC nodes back online.
As others have said, I'm more worried about the non-obvious attacks like KYC and surveillance that manage to get exchanges, etc to do the attack on behalf of the state on their own customers and many customers comply without even seeing it as an attack.
But I like to imagine how these "obvious" disaster scenarios would play out, makes good material for a Bitcoin-themed scifi novel.
Let's suppose the 3 letter agencies are monitoring who runs a bitcoin node and they already have a map of everybody or almost everybody
Its possible, nodes have a predictable spike in download for every new block
Maybe your node connects via Tor so specific ports and IP address destinations are obscured, but the traffic pattern of downloading about 1-2 MB for every block remains. It just depends on what access the attackers have into your network and how noisy your network is -- whether the new block traffic spike is detectable.
Then they can simply coordinate an attack requesting the ISP to block the traffic or certain home/office or whatever
Its not that simple. The ISP can also try to refuse the request, especially if there's no evidence of abuse, etc. Its not illegal to run a node yet!
I know I'd switch ISPs if my current one tried to censor me. ISPs don't want to lose a customer.
Also there are nodes in other countries where USA agencies have no authority.
then they turn on their 100.000 nodes on AWS and the network is theirs
What do you mean? Bitcoin is not a proof of stake democracy of nodes! Having more nodes does not let you "own the network".
Nodes verify the chain. If the feds want to verify with their own nodes then that's fine! They can even verify it 100,000 times if they want!
I run a node to verify my sats. I also use a handful of trusted nodes to verify my sats (like mempool.space)
If my node went offline AND the trusted nodes I use are also unreachable, or not syncing to the latest block, then I'm not going to suddenly start trusting some other node which might be an attacker because I cannot verify or cross-reference the information they are showing me about my sats.
I'd probably just try to find another way to get my node online and refrain from making BTC transactions in the meantime.
There's an orbital satellite which broadcasts the chain via radio can be intercepted anywhere on the planet with a compatible receiver: https://blockstream.com/satellite/
There is no change to Bitcoin required to implement this. Whether someone implements this does not "improve" bitcoin.
Use whatever unit YOU want in YOUR application. No consensus is required. This is best solved as a client-side user preference setting. Not a BIP-worthy proposal, IMO
The Amish might have used this service. But they use https://ibyfax.com instead.
Many Amish communes have a dedicated outhouse building or room with a fax machine for sending/receiving fax-to-email so they can sell their wares "online".
Like chill bro take a minute to enjoy the milestone.
People that are capable of chilling at a "milestone", would likely have chilled at the last milestone, or chilled so hard that they never even tried to make something themselves.
Sometimes, maybe we just regressed to the mean, that's why, because statistics, bitch.
Productive people exist to raise the mean.
I have a mil, now I want 2 mil! Never bloody ends.
Money is like an IOU. People who have lots of it, have helped lots of people (baring theft, taxation, monopoly strong-arming, other ways to extract wealth outside a free market of voluntary cooperation, etc.)
You could rephrase this as "I have helped enough people to earn a mill, I want to help twice as many people!". Sounds like a noble goal to me.
I also found this which suggests that Fold is using it?
You may also be interested in this, although it doesn't use kube: #720736
I’ve yet to meet a single person who’s run a full Lightning node and said, “Wow, this is really my cash cow, and so fun to maintain, you’ve got to join in, man.”
Why would someone invite competition to take a bite out of their cash cow? The incentive for successful operators is to downplay the profitability of LN routing.
Compare that to running a Bitcoin full node, which at least feels like a public service with minimal upkeep. Lightning nodes, on the other hand, feel like a second job at Starbucks—but one that doesn’t pay.
If you aren't getting paid enough with routing, then your node isn't useful enough. Its not your fault. Its not LN's fault. It just maybe isn't a job for you and that's okay!
Also, your full node isn't a public service unless you forward ports and seed blocks. Even then, its not that useful because your residential internet connection is likely capped on bandwidth.
Incentivize Node Operators
There is incentive already! Help people complete their payments, get rewarded! What you suggest is like a welfare subsidy for nodes that aren't helping anyone.
More Lightning implementations need to simplify onboarding. Abstract away the channel balancing headaches. Make Lightning work like a consumer app, not like a sysadmin puzzle.
Protocol daemons are not apps!
Implementations should stay specialized in the core functions and leave opinionated UX decisions to app developers and service providers.
In conclusion, I agree with your case for more accessible redundancy options at the LN node level.
I think most issues with LN node unreliability stem from inexperienced sysadmins going too deep into a tech stack they don't understand, using hardware that's designed for controlling Christmas lights (Raspi) instead of a proper enterprise grade server that's made for critical payments infrastructure.
BTC is already the most decentralized money we've ever had. I'd hate to have my node fall out of consensus or see a chain split occur just because I was virtue signaling over MuH ImPleMeNtaTiOn sO sPeCiaL and CoRe Is CeNtRaLiZinG BTC
I don't think a chain split will happen if many people run knots because, like I said, its just core with extra options. But we've seen issues with implementations that aren't a direct fork of core like btcd (golang). If you were running btcd node when this happend... https://bitcoinmagazine.com/technical/bug-took-down-part-of-the-lightning-network
...then your node would have been kicked off the network, unable to get new blocks until patched. If thats the cost of being marginally more decentralized, then I don't think it's worth the tradeoff IMO. But run whatever node you want. It's not my problem if BTC rejects your node or you end up creating a shitcoin in the process.
Both core and knots are written in C++
Not a lot of diversity there. Really, knots is just core with more config options added
Its probably best that 99% of the nodes run the same implementation (or at least implementations based on the same language)
In a consensus based system, even the bugs in the software (or nuances of the underlying language) have to be universally present in all nodes in order to avoid falling out of consensus or causing a chain split.
If an aircraft had problems 2.1% of the time I needed to fly it, I, for one, wouldn't call it "reliable".
If I made a trade on robosats daily for 3 years, I'd spend over 22 days in dispute court on average
And another 20-ish days worth of my trades would be canceled without dispute.
I enjoy doing squats.
Regular small dose exposure to pathogens is good for the immune system.
1¢ is worth ~10 sats
https://sat-cent.vercel.app/
It might be a pre-1982 penny made of mostly copper with a melt value of 2¢
It might be on "heads" and I'll have good luck!
It might save a couple seconds later on when I use it to pay with exact change
For now, the cost of excluding a high-paying txn is relatively small, and the virtue signal is comparatively strong. Maybe when fees account for 90% of miner revenue the desire to discriminate will be reduced.
Subsidies tend to distort all kinds of markets. How can blockspace be properly valued if empty blocks still pay 80% as well as full blocks?
Today, Ocean delays the inclusion of "spam" which might be tolerable to the market, after all, how quickly do you really need your JPEG stored on everyone's node?
The market for blockspace also permits a miner to censor non-spam and prioritize these "spam" transactions instead. If the market wants spam txns confirmed quickly, then all it takes is one pool (or an alliance of pools) with similar hashrate as Ocean to effectively negate all their efforts to delay spam.