Excellent post @ /r/btc by justusranvier
https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/3 ... bility_to/
-
kerneldump
- Nickel Bitcoiner
- Posts: 37
- Joined: Fri Sep 18, 2015 7:24 pm
Re: Bitcoin Survival - Why Bitcoin must demonstrate the ability to overcome obstacles
This was fantastic.
Justus always writes fantastic things.
Justus always writes fantastic things.
-
LiteCoinGuy
- Gold Bitcoiner
- Posts: 2505
- Joined: Mon Sep 21, 2015 9:00 am
Re: Bitcoin Survival - Why Bitcoin must demonstrate the ability to overcome obstacles
"As long as I've been aware of Bitcoin, I've been in favor of unlimited main-chain scaling because a single universal ledger has better monetary properties than any alternative arrangement.
At the same time, I've remained optimistic that, even though I fully expect governments to devote significant resources to destroying Bitcoin, the incentives inherent to Bitcoin will not allow these attempts to be successful.
While I think both of those positions are shared by a significant fraction of Bitcoin users, they certainly aren't universally accepted and the latter point is one which I think is both relevant and under-discussed in the current Bitcoin scaling debate.
Before I go any further, here's an extremely very brief summary of the block size limit debate for those who haven't been aware of it prior to the most recent flare up.
Review
Beginning in July of 2012, two different conversations about the future of Bitcoin began to emerge.
On one side, several individuals began discussing "trustless" (low-ish trust) off-chain payments.
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=91732.0
http://gavintech.blogspot.com/2012/07/o ... tions.html
On the other side, Bitcoin users and developers began asking for a plan regarding main chain scaling.
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=96097.0
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=140233.0
Off-chain transactions attracted quite a bit of interest among some developers, and arguments began to emerge that the main chain scaling which Satoshi has described and which, up until that point, everybody expected would happen, should be delayed or eliminated.
The debate began to become heated in late 2012 and early 2013:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=144895.0
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=221111.0
The arguments on small-block size were diverse. Some of them made in apparent good faith. Others were made by developers and employees of competing currencies which would benefit from limits to Bitcoin's success.
Some of them were based on a world view that is fundamentally incompatible with those wishing to see unhindered growth. Take, for example, Peter Todd's argument that Bitcoin main chain scaling should be limited to provide a financial incentive for the development of off-chain transaction systems.
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic ... msg1564028
To some people, using artificial subsidies and restrictions to promote (what somebody determines to be) the best economic solution is self-evidently a good idea. To other people the idea is abhorrent, and the fact that option A requires a subsidy to make it competitive with option B self-evidently means A is inferior to B.
This debate was nowhere close to resolution in 2013, but the exchange rate crash and the closing of Satoshi Dice to US users reduced the trajectory of block growth and gave us a two year reprieve, so mostly people just dropped the subject until Mike Hearn proposed BIP101 earlier this year.
Pessimism vs anti-fragility
I think the strongest good-faith argument against main chain scaling is the argument from pessimism. This argument says that Bitcoin is in constant danger of being attacked by highly-resourced adversaries, and so the best defence is to remain small. Any misstep has the potential to destroy behavior.
The opposite position to this is that people adopt Bitcoin because it offers them something they want very strongly and can't get anywhere else. Because of this, every person involved in Bitcoin has a strong incentive to adapt as necessary to overcome threats to Bitcoin. Attackers only get to use every strategy available to them one time. After each attack, Bitcoin users will adjust their behavior and their software to make the previous attack no longer viable. Thus, the act of attacking Bitcoin causes it to become more resilient over time.
How can we know if the anti-fragile hypothesis is true? As is usually the case, it's not possible to prove that Bitcoin is anti-fragile - it's only possible to prove that it isn't. If anyone manages to destroy Bitcoin then the hypothesis is false. As long as this is not the case, then the hypothesis is "not yet disproven".
One of the best statements of the pessimistic case was recently made by Mark Friedenbach:
https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/commen ... he/cu53eq3
Bitcoin is already centralized. Do you realize that a cabal of a half-dozen people (I'm not talking about the developers) have the power, even if they have yet to exercise it, to arbitrarily control bitcoin? That this power also rests with anyone who controls the networks used by this cabal, which is presently confined to a small number of datacenters? That if they were in the US all it would take is a couple of national security letters for full control over the bitcoin network? I assure you the Chinese government has much stronger strings to pull.
The optimistic perspective says that if the US government used the NSL strategy against datacenters that operate Bitcoin miners and nodes, it would represent a temporary setback that we'd adapt to and overcome.
This view was expressed by /u/go1111111
https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/commen ... he/cu59kss
One of the reasons it's so difficult to resolve this debate is is that there's no way to "bench test" the anti-fragility hypothesis.
Bitcoin has, and will continue, to come under attack. It will either continue to survive the attacks or it won't.
It is possible, however, to make some predictions based on induction. If there exists an adversary capable of hindering Bitcoin, then we can be sure that all adversaries with more even more resources will also be successful.
Whether they realizes it or not, the scaling-skeptics have actually set up such a test.
The test
Until the US government uses national security letters in an attempt to shut down Bitcoin, we won't know if Bitcoin can survive such an attack.
We do know, however, that many adversaries have fewer resources to available to them than the US government.
Therefore, if Blockstream, Peter Todd, competing currency developers, Mircea Popescu, or anyone with fewer resources than the US government is able to stop Bitcoin from growing, then we know for sure that the US government is also capable of stopping it.
If those who hold the pessimistic position are successful at preventing a block size limit increase, it logically proves that their pessimism was justified.
Given this reality, it doesn't really make sense to debate the pessimistic vs optimistic position - only empirical demonstrations can settle the matter.
Either Bitcoin will demonstrate the ability to overcome all obstacles to growth, no matter their sources, or it won't.
If Bitcoin Core developers are successful at preventing the network from adopting a higher block size limit, then it proves they are right to do so.
The only effective way to argue against that position is to prove that Bitcoin is capable of upgrading without the cooperation of Bitcoin Core."
At the same time, I've remained optimistic that, even though I fully expect governments to devote significant resources to destroying Bitcoin, the incentives inherent to Bitcoin will not allow these attempts to be successful.
While I think both of those positions are shared by a significant fraction of Bitcoin users, they certainly aren't universally accepted and the latter point is one which I think is both relevant and under-discussed in the current Bitcoin scaling debate.
Before I go any further, here's an extremely very brief summary of the block size limit debate for those who haven't been aware of it prior to the most recent flare up.
Review
Beginning in July of 2012, two different conversations about the future of Bitcoin began to emerge.
On one side, several individuals began discussing "trustless" (low-ish trust) off-chain payments.
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=91732.0
http://gavintech.blogspot.com/2012/07/o ... tions.html
On the other side, Bitcoin users and developers began asking for a plan regarding main chain scaling.
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=96097.0
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=140233.0
Off-chain transactions attracted quite a bit of interest among some developers, and arguments began to emerge that the main chain scaling which Satoshi has described and which, up until that point, everybody expected would happen, should be delayed or eliminated.
The debate began to become heated in late 2012 and early 2013:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=144895.0
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=221111.0
The arguments on small-block size were diverse. Some of them made in apparent good faith. Others were made by developers and employees of competing currencies which would benefit from limits to Bitcoin's success.
Some of them were based on a world view that is fundamentally incompatible with those wishing to see unhindered growth. Take, for example, Peter Todd's argument that Bitcoin main chain scaling should be limited to provide a financial incentive for the development of off-chain transaction systems.
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic ... msg1564028
To some people, using artificial subsidies and restrictions to promote (what somebody determines to be) the best economic solution is self-evidently a good idea. To other people the idea is abhorrent, and the fact that option A requires a subsidy to make it competitive with option B self-evidently means A is inferior to B.
This debate was nowhere close to resolution in 2013, but the exchange rate crash and the closing of Satoshi Dice to US users reduced the trajectory of block growth and gave us a two year reprieve, so mostly people just dropped the subject until Mike Hearn proposed BIP101 earlier this year.
Pessimism vs anti-fragility
I think the strongest good-faith argument against main chain scaling is the argument from pessimism. This argument says that Bitcoin is in constant danger of being attacked by highly-resourced adversaries, and so the best defence is to remain small. Any misstep has the potential to destroy behavior.
The opposite position to this is that people adopt Bitcoin because it offers them something they want very strongly and can't get anywhere else. Because of this, every person involved in Bitcoin has a strong incentive to adapt as necessary to overcome threats to Bitcoin. Attackers only get to use every strategy available to them one time. After each attack, Bitcoin users will adjust their behavior and their software to make the previous attack no longer viable. Thus, the act of attacking Bitcoin causes it to become more resilient over time.
How can we know if the anti-fragile hypothesis is true? As is usually the case, it's not possible to prove that Bitcoin is anti-fragile - it's only possible to prove that it isn't. If anyone manages to destroy Bitcoin then the hypothesis is false. As long as this is not the case, then the hypothesis is "not yet disproven".
One of the best statements of the pessimistic case was recently made by Mark Friedenbach:
https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/commen ... he/cu53eq3
Bitcoin is already centralized. Do you realize that a cabal of a half-dozen people (I'm not talking about the developers) have the power, even if they have yet to exercise it, to arbitrarily control bitcoin? That this power also rests with anyone who controls the networks used by this cabal, which is presently confined to a small number of datacenters? That if they were in the US all it would take is a couple of national security letters for full control over the bitcoin network? I assure you the Chinese government has much stronger strings to pull.
The optimistic perspective says that if the US government used the NSL strategy against datacenters that operate Bitcoin miners and nodes, it would represent a temporary setback that we'd adapt to and overcome.
This view was expressed by /u/go1111111
https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/commen ... he/cu59kss
One of the reasons it's so difficult to resolve this debate is is that there's no way to "bench test" the anti-fragility hypothesis.
Bitcoin has, and will continue, to come under attack. It will either continue to survive the attacks or it won't.
It is possible, however, to make some predictions based on induction. If there exists an adversary capable of hindering Bitcoin, then we can be sure that all adversaries with more even more resources will also be successful.
Whether they realizes it or not, the scaling-skeptics have actually set up such a test.
The test
Until the US government uses national security letters in an attempt to shut down Bitcoin, we won't know if Bitcoin can survive such an attack.
We do know, however, that many adversaries have fewer resources to available to them than the US government.
Therefore, if Blockstream, Peter Todd, competing currency developers, Mircea Popescu, or anyone with fewer resources than the US government is able to stop Bitcoin from growing, then we know for sure that the US government is also capable of stopping it.
If those who hold the pessimistic position are successful at preventing a block size limit increase, it logically proves that their pessimism was justified.
Given this reality, it doesn't really make sense to debate the pessimistic vs optimistic position - only empirical demonstrations can settle the matter.
Either Bitcoin will demonstrate the ability to overcome all obstacles to growth, no matter their sources, or it won't.
If Bitcoin Core developers are successful at preventing the network from adopting a higher block size limit, then it proves they are right to do so.
The only effective way to argue against that position is to prove that Bitcoin is capable of upgrading without the cooperation of Bitcoin Core."
********************************************
More informations about Bitcoin and scaling BTC on
bitcoin.org/en/
https://bitcoincore.org/en/2015/12/23/c ... reases-faq
&
reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/
More informations about Bitcoin and scaling BTC on
bitcoin.org/en/
https://bitcoincore.org/en/2015/12/23/c ... reases-faq
&
reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/
Return to “Bitcoin Discussion”
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests