Merged Bitcoin - Part 3

[jeremyp]

https://www.forbes.com/sites/digita...ers-could-break-bitcoin-sooner-than-expected/

google moves up the quantum computing algorithmic break of bitcoin to 2032, aims to protect it's users by 2029

Firstly, a 10% chance that a thing will happen by 2032 is not all that high. Personally, I'm sceptical, but we'll see.

Secondly, (and psionl0 will point this out if I don't), it's not just crypto coins that are compromised if somebody finds a way to get a private key from a public key, virtually all current encryption techniques on the Internet will be vulnerable.

 

[dirtywick]

Firstly, a 10% chance that a thing will happen by 2032 is not all that high. Personally, I'm sceptical, but we'll see.

Secondly, (and psionl0 will point this out if I don't), it's not just crypto coins that are compromised if somebody finds a way to get a private key from a public key, virtually all current encryption techniques on the Internet will be vulnerable.

i would note that crypto, and bitcoin in particular, is uniquely difficult to adapt new techniques and change the code due to it’s decentralized nature.

 

[psionl0]

Even quite intelligent people have fallen victims to such scams.

Greed sometimes outweighs common sense. One movie made by WC Fields was "You can't cheat an honest man".

Of course, quite intelligent people are not always immune from a lack of common sense.

 

[psionl0]

i would note that crypto, and bitcoin in particular, is uniquely difficult to adapt new techniques and change the code due to it’s decentralized nature.

https://www.gemini.com/en-AU/cryptopedia/bitcoin-fork-protocol-upgrades-blockchain-changes

 

[dirtywick]

https://www.gemini.com/en-AU/cryptopedia/bitcoin-fork-protocol-upgrades-blockchain-changes

thank you. as psion helpfully points out, not everyone needs to adopt a change to the code, making it uniquely difficult to change relative to something like a credit card or bank or even other crypto, and you can wind up with a whole different blockchain as a result

Bitcoin Cash - Peer-to-Peer Electronic Cash

Bitcoin Cash is fast, affordable, and borderless electronic cash. With fees under a penny and confirmations in seconds, it brings sound money to the world through global adoption, permissionless innovation, and decentralized development.

bitcoincash.org

this is one of the major forks of bitcoin from 2017, bitcoin cash. same thing on a faster network basically as mentioned in the article. it didn’t really catch on though as you can tell from the price. although, it does bring up an interesting philosophical question on the whole scarcity thing, as in whether there’s really only 21m available if you can fork and double it.

 

[psionl0]

https://thebitcoinmanual.com/behind-btc/upgrades/

 

[dirtywick]

thank you again psion, good information there. like the article says, you need to get the majority of miners to agree, as it’s a huge undertaking due to its decentralized nature

Usually, someone in the Bitcoin Core Development Group will put forward a proposal for an upgrade and if the majority of miners agree then it will be put in place on the main Bitcoin chain. These types of upgrades are known as a “soft fork”. These upgrades are a huge undertaking between a global network of developers!

goes on to list the times they’ve forked bitcoin, which is only 3 times in its history. one of which is the bitcoin cash fork already discussed, only in that article they call it the “bitcoin civil war” perhaps to highlight the difficulty of changing the code.

 

[psionl0]

The point is that if an encryption upgrade becomes necessary then it is not as difficult to implement as you are making out.

 

[The Great Zaganza]

No encryption is going to be enough against a determined actor with a quantum computer

 

[psionl0]

No encryption is going to be enough against a determined actor with a quantum computer

If that is true then the entire online universe is in trouble.

 

[dirtywick]

The point is that if an encryption upgrade becomes necessary then it is not as difficult to implement as you are making out.

really?

all the evidence you presented makes it seem pretty difficult. the bitcoin cash hard fork, what seemed like a necessary upgrade to increase the transaction rate and speed, resulted in a hard fork with the upgraded version being the much less popular one really defeats that point imo.

 

[jeremyp]

The point is that if an encryption upgrade becomes necessary then it is not as difficult to implement as you are making out.

The problem there is "necessary" is as perceived by Bitcoin miners, not as perceived by Bitcoin speculators. If the majority of Bitcoin miners perceive it as necessary to remove the limit on the number go bitcoins, then it will happen irrespective of whether the speculators like the idea.

If the encryption is compromised, it doesn't really matter whether the miners agree to a change or not, the blockchain will be finished before they fix it.

 

[psionl0]

really?

all the evidence you presented makes it seem pretty difficult. the bitcoin cash hard fork, what seemed like a necessary upgrade to increase the transaction rate and speed, resulted in a hard fork with the upgraded version being the much less popular one really defeats that point imo.

Comparing an optional block size change with a necessary encryption upgrade is comparing apples with oranges.

 

[dirtywick]

Comparing an optional block size change with a necessary encryption upgrade is comparing apples with oranges.

it’s a minor change that increased the transaction rate, something necessary for it to scale with an increased number of users if it was meant to be used frequently like a currency. and yet it was nearly impossible to do, and ended up failing and resulting in a hard fork.

why do you think it’s an unfair comparison, and in which case why did you bring it up as evidence if it’s apples to oranges?

 

[psionl0]

it’s a minor change that increased the transaction rate, something necessary for it to scale with an increased number of users if it was meant to be used frequently like a currency. and yet it was nearly impossible to do, and ended up failing and resulting in a hard fork.

why do you think it’s an unfair comparison, and in which case why did you bring it up as evidence if it’s apples to oranges?

If you really see no difference between the two scenarios then there is no helping you.

And I am not bringing up cases as "evidence". I am merely providing links to factual websites for those readers who would like more than your unsubstantiated POV on changing bitcoin source code.

 

[dirtywick]

If you really see no difference between the two scenarios then there is no helping you.

And I am not bringing up cases as "evidence". I am merely providing links to factual websites for those readers who would like more than your unsubstantiated POV on changing bitcoin source code.

sources that substantiate that updating the bitcoin source code is difficult due to being decentralized, which is exactly what i said. then i say thanks and you get mad but dont know why

lol

 

[psionl0]

. . . and you get mad but dont know why

LOL that seems to be your standard go to whenever you lose the argument.

 

[dirtywick]

LOL that seems to be your standard go to whenever you lose the argument.

just a post ago you weren't making an argument and didn't present any evidence? just some facts for people to read. that agreed with exactly what i said, and that makes you upset because it's embarassing you disagreed, presented evidence that says the opposite, then said it wasn't evidence just some facts that you can't help explain why they say what they say.

but now, it's an argument that you somehow think you won? i got no other way to describe your behavior besides emotional.

 

[psionl0]

Give it up. You have been arguing yourself blue in the face (and no doubt have many more posts to go) that bitcoin will be cracked wide open long before there is any consensus among miners to upgrade its security. Taking out of context snippets from my links in no way verifies this ridiculous argument.

For readers other than dirtywick, there is plenty of material about what changes to the bitcoin software have been agreed to by the miners. For example, this link:

This high-level overview of SegWit and Taproot shows that while Bitcoin developers are hesitant to make consensus changes to Bitcoin, this does not imply that Bitcoin’s technical features are immune to change.

 

[dirtywick]

for clarity for the imaginary reader that psion is addressing, that's not what i was arguing, i said bitcoin is uniquely difficult to change it's code relative to other more centralized mediums. i didn't say it was impossible. a fact that his own sources, which are not "evidence" to him apparently, agreed with as i quoted them above. even thought it's only a few posts above he seems to have once again gotten himself confused about the conversation, so here's my quote that he's spent all this time ultimately misrepresenting, hopefully through carelessness and not dishonesty:

i would note that crypto, and bitcoin in particular, is uniquely difficult to adapt new techniques and change the code due to it’s decentralized nature.

the biggest challenge is getting miner consensus, which his own sources note is difficult, both in the one he quoted there and the one i quoted above.