this post was submitted on 19 Jun 2023
234 points (100.0% liked)
Technology
37646 readers
262 users here now
A nice place to discuss rumors, happenings, innovations, and challenges in the technology sphere. We also welcome discussions on the intersections of technology and society. If it’s technological news or discussion of technology, it probably belongs here.
Remember the overriding ethos on Beehaw: Be(e) Nice. Each user you encounter here is a person, and should be treated with kindness (even if they’re wrong, or use a Linux distro you don’t like). Personal attacks will not be tolerated.
Subcommunities on Beehaw:
This community's icon was made by Aaron Schneider, under the CC-BY-NC-SA 4.0 license.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Trust is one of the most fundamental parts of any monetary system, so brute forcing hashes in this case is directly related to it.
Bitcoin can easily serve the world on 100 Mac Minis. Probably even fewer. The fact that currently people beat themselves into burning ridiculous amounts of electricity to run Bitcoin nodes is a function of the profitability of doing that. If that profitability decreases, so will the electricity burned. If I remember correctly, the protocol is designed to reduce that reward over time and unless the dollar value of Bitcoin dramatically increases, the energy waste should decrease long term.
A secondary point on energy consumption is how that of Bitcoin compares to the traditional financial transaction systems. I don't have the numbers at the moment but last time I checked it wasn't pretty for the latter.
With all that said, if PoS is proven to be as robust as PoW, it should probably be adopted and it absolutely can be for systems currently on PoW.
I think you're missing a critical part of how blockchains function: If Bitcoin was running on only 100 Mac Minis, there is nothing stopping someone buying 101 more Mac Minis, becoming dominant in the network and suddenly they can decide to just print their own bitcoins for themself.
The profitability of running Bitcoin miners is proportional to the market cap and the value of Bitcoin itself. For Bitcoin to remain stable, the total value must remain less than the cost of hardware to dominate the consensus algorithm.
Can you elaborate on how one could print bitcoins if they controlled 50% of the network?
Bitcoin miners validate transactions on the network, so if one entity controls a majority of all miners, they can validate their own fraudulent transactions
One couldn't, somebody who controls 51% might get away with a few double spends until they are caught, that's all.
"A few double spends" is underestimating the impact. When this has happened in the past, the whole network gets fragmented, and at some point everyone needs to decide which version of history to throw out, allowing potentially anyone to double-spend in that time frame. A bad actor with enough compute could cause a network split and put whatever they want in the ledger. Getting caught isn't really a concern if it's all anonymous wallets, and it only takes 1 unnoticed transaction to move millions.
The entire basis for trust in Bitcoin (and any proof of work blockchain) is that the network is so big, no single actor has the resources to become a majority and influence the ledger.