Michael Fuhrmann at Reisen macht Spass mit Pia und DirkNow: 'supernode' Tomorrow: mobile phone Ask him again in 5 years from now. Everyone has G4 with 1GB/s on a quad-core low end smartphone. So what? Maybe he might be right for a while. But if there is 1 bad guy then 10 good guys stand up and run a 16GB, 100MBit flat, Quad-core node for $60 somethere. Internet via cable has 100Mbit for 30 bugs ... There are more supernodes out there than he is thinking.9 months ago
Are you sure you want to
Juraj Bednar, Partner at DIGMIASupernodes and normal nodes are true, but it can not compare this to the normal banking system, because:
a.) in bitcoin 'supernode' model, everyone can become a bank
b.) you can not do fractional reserve banking easily (or if you do, it gets self-regulated like old times with no central bank)
The difference is not that there are no banks, that's irrelevant. The difference is that there is no central bank. And that is a huge difference.1 year ago
Are you sure you want to
Joise2About the supernodes: I think it is a false dichotomy that the transaction network EITHER must be a completely decentralized peer-to-peer network OR a completely centralized, hierarchically structured bank network. There is a very interesting class of networks / graphs / structures called ’small world networks’. They have extremely interesting properties, for example a very high connectivity and extremely short average and maximum distances while being highly decentralized. What matters is that a subset of the nodes are strongly connected and that they have far-reaching connections. Such networks are very frequent in social relationships and many other domains. I think that such a network would not behave like a bank or a hierarchically organized army. It would be more like a village spreading rumors.1 year ago
Are you sure you want to
bgeronThere is serious optimization possible on the storage side. If you want to host a Bitcoin archive of all time, then yes, you have to store all blocks. If you only want to be able to verify transactions and keep a history of /your/ wallet, then it’s possible to prune old transactions: say transactions that are made obsolete by a valid transaction of more than a month old. The limiting factor is that if the block chain splits (network split, DOS attack on propagating nodes) and suddenly you discover a longer block chain with more authority, you have to be able to retrace your state to that better block chain. A month-long network split is quite unimaginable, unless you live in Egypt or something. But then you don’t receive the transactions in the rest of the world, so storage cost in that time is also reduced.
In slide 17 you mention that SHA-256 is a poor choice of the hash, because it is quick with a GPU and it creates a shortage in GPUs. I argue that it is not a poor choice, because a quick hash means it’s quick to verify (smaller cost to run a wallet). The cost to miners is the same with SHA-256 or bcrypt, because the cost of mining (difficulty) is determined by the demand in Bitcoin, measured in USD. It’s an equilibrium: if mining is too cheap, more miners will start or miners will expand. With SHA-256 we have a GPU shortage, but with bcrypt we could have a motherboard shortage or something. Or maybe FPGAs are best for bcrypt, then we would get a shortage of those.
You do have a point about ananonymity and Bitcoin losing the lightweight atmosphere it has now, those are big disadvantages. Interesting slides!
Also, the people on reddit have some interesting comments: http://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/j9e4a/kaminsky_on_bitcoin/1 year ago
Are you sure you want to
bgeron@justmoon: The problem with overly large pools is that (I think) it’s hard to see what the pool operator does. There exist or existed auditable pools, but if I understand most pools correctly then the server sends a challenge (merkle tree hash, basically) with a nonce blank, and the miners don’t actually know what transactions they are hashing into a block.
@vermorel: My calculations give not even that. The last 20 blocks in Block Explorer have 1086 transactions of 0.43 kB each on average, so say each transaction is half a kB. Then 2000 tps corresponds to 1 MB/s, which is 600 MB/block.
The wiki mentions 60 GB/s, but this is assuming you want to send a 1.14 GB block to your 50 peers which still need to download the entire block, all in a minute. It’s not very likely that those 50 peers only get the data from you, BitTorrent was invented for a reason. P2P works for this kind of distribution.
Note: it’s kind of necessary that block distribution is not too slow, because if miners (pool operators) do not have the latest block, they will generate blocks on top of an older block and we get block chain splits.1 year ago
Are you sure you want to
justmoonOn anonymity: Bitcoin does not guarantee anonymity. This actually came up when we were making the ’What is Bitcoin?’ Video. We had in the script that Bitcoin is anonymous and removed it from a later version because it isn’t. You can combine Bitcoin with other technologies like Tor in order to be anonymous, but that’s beyond the scope of Bitcoin itself.
On supernodes: As any chess player knows, the threat is greater than the execution. What matters is not how many nodes there are, but how difficult it is to start one. If I don’t like any of the VISA member banks’ policies and I want to issue my own VISA card, I have to get a banking license which usually means seven or eight digit capital requirements and licensing costs, i.e. a huge barrier to entry. For a Bitcoin node, even in the most extreme case (whole world using Bitcoin for everything) I just need a few thousand dollars worth of hardware. (Note that transaction verification and mining are split - you can start a pool without doing any mining and you can become a miner without verifying any transactions.) That is a big difference.
On pools: Pools are not themselves powerful. They don’t have ’41%’, their members do. Meaning if a pool starts behaving in a way that does not serve the self-interest of its members it will lose hashing power quickly. So the question is not ’How big are the pools?’, but ’What is in the self-interest of individual miners?’ Certainly a complex question, but by looking at the pools you’ve completely missed it.1 year ago
Are you sure you want to
vermorel, Founder at LokadHum, numbers are off. For VISA amount of transactions per seconds (aka 2000tps), it's 1.14GB per Block (aka 10min), not per second. So we end up with 2MB/sec to handle all the Visa traffic. Nothing that a single server could not handle. Then, the optimization potential is much larger than that.1 year ago
If You’re Smart Leave the room right now “Bitcoin turns nerd forums into libertarian forums” This is true Bitcoin is a particularly effective DoS against security professionals Why?
Security Inversion Normal Code Looks like it might be OK up front Scratch the surface, it’s actually really bad BitCoin Looks really bad up front Scratch the surface, it’s actually surprisingly good We aren’t used to systems with these characteristics This code has the mark of having been audited by People Like Us And quants
The basic summary BitCoin is absolutely not anonymous BitCoin clearly does not scale In the long term It does work for now though This isn’t 0day stuff, this is basically declared almost entirely up front
What Is BitCoin A really strange use of cryptography “Strange” is not a sufficient, interesting, or even vaguely competent way to mark a system as insecure It’s a decent way to say “this is not the normal way things are put together” Two systems mated together A peer to peer network that does a best case effort to synchronize data (loose “transactions” and solved “blocks”) across as many nodes as possible A Chinese Lottery that canonicalizes subsets of synchronized data, using the difficulty of finding partial hash collisions
The Basic Idea (In A Nutshell) 1) I’m hearing about all these transactions going on – Alice is paying Bob, Bob is paying Charlie, etc 2) I hash all the transactions I’ve heard about, with some random information, and the hash of the last time someone did that, until there’s a partial collision First n bits equals 0 N is automatically determined based on how hard it has to be for one block to be found about every 10 minutes This is a block 3) I send everyone my “block” – transactions plus hash of previous block plus random data. This gives me 50 bitcoins (for now). 4) I can now “sign over” those bitcoins, from my private key, to other people’s (or my) public key. 5) Repeat until there’s lots of people with lots of BitCoins Possibly purchased instead of “mined”
Interesting Traits The basic concept is actually relatively solid Assuming partial collisions are predictably hard to find Assuming ECDSA works Basic Idea 1: Money can’t be created from nothing – hashing is needed Basic Idea 2: Transactions can’t be blocked or reversed by a central entity – “is none” It makes security engineers talk like monetary scientists That’s sort of OK, economists pretend to do that too… Seriously, that’s silly– lets just talk tech, OK?
Epic Scalability Quote 1(https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Scalability) “The core BitCoin network can scale to very high transaction rates assuming a distributed version of the node software is built. This would not be very complicated.” Because there’s nothing easier to do, than make a system distributed This is totally not one of the Hard Problems Of Computer Science By “Distributed” they mean “Centralized” WhyBitCoin is uniquely hard to audit It claims the advantages of its present architecture, and its future architecture, while rebutting the disadvantages of one with the advantages of the other Instead of saying, “We don’t do that”, they say “Something else could do that”
Scalability Costs: Network Bandwidth “Let's assume an average rate of 2000tps, so just VISA…. Shifting 60 gigabytes of data in, say, 60 seconds means an average rate of 1 gigabyte per second, or 8 gigabits per second.” :O
Up and Down Going up “Let's take 4,000 tps as starting goal. Obviously if we want BitCoin to scale to all economic transactions worldwide, including cash, it'd be a lot higher than that, perhaps more in the region of a few hundred thousand transactions/sec.” And the need to be able to withstand DoS attacks (which VISA does not have to deal with) implies we would want to scale far beyond the standard peak rates. TB/sec Going down Even at 1/100th of VISA, that’s still 10MB/sec
Are There Future Optimizations? “Because nodes are very likely to have already seen a transaction when it was first broadcast, this means the size of a block to download would be trivial (80 bytes + 32 bytes per transaction). If a node didn't see a transaction broadcast, it can ask the connected node to provide it.” Potential 50% savings! Could go from 1GB to 500MB/sec
What About Storage? In order to validate a transaction, you need all blocks up to the present one Joining BitCoin today == downloading 200+MB history all the way to the start of time That only increases “ A 3 terabyte hard disk costs less than $200 today and will be cheaper still in future, so you'd need one such disk for every 21 days of operation (at 1gb per block).” So you get to participate directly in BitCoin, at the low low cost of $200 a month Assuming zero costs of running a storage array
CPU? ”A network node capable of keeping up with VISA would need roughly 50 cores + whatever is used for mining (done by separate machines/GPUs).” In the long run, that’s what it takes to participate (assuming no DoS, which would take 5000 cores) (You actually need to validate all historical transactions too)
OK, so you end up with supernodes and normal nodes What are the characteristics of supernodes? They’re banks “Welcome to the new boss, who looks suspiciously like the old boss” I’m not saying banks are bad or anything The “peer to peer” model of BitCoin eventually goes away; as soon as the thing gets big, the entire thing switches to a banking model
Reality of Banking As the network gets bigger, fewer and fewer nodes can be banks Only so many parties can exchange a gigabyte a second. The 50% threshold is inevitable BitCoin banks still can’t gin up money BitCoin banks can’t forcibly take money Unless they hold the private keys for the user, which they might BitCoin banks can refuse to accept blocks with “undesirable” transactions Don’t need 50% -- just need enough to inconvenience 50% to accept your opinion Can block undesirable transactions Can recompute blocks w/o certain transactions (reversal) This offers a host of ugly semantics
Already Suffering This BitCoin’s security model is base on the idea that nobody can control more than 50% of the network Exact PetaFlop count unclear, but >40 and <200 Weird metric, given that crypto uses integer operations when FLOPS are floating point Several times more than largest supercomputer Pools are breaking this #1 pool has 41% #2 pool has 30% “Security through ostracism” to Pitchfork Security DDoS against #1 pool
Bad Choice Of Hash Standard Existing model can be accelerated massively with GPUs Just 2x SHA-256 Could have been bcrypt or the like, in which performance does not scale with pure processing speed Basically adds memory and serialization dependencies Wasn’t implemented, so now we have shortages of GPUs…
What About Anonymity? The full worldwide transaction history is stored and shared, forever and ever Everyone has names like: 1MQbbWUi2scKdZ4KtMMSUSvVmxi6XtEeaC How do you know who you’re paying? You don’t Everyone is encouraged to make up new names for every transaction Actually how you can tell why someone is paying you Out of band, you tell someone “to pay me, pay this address” When that address is paid, you can dereference to your own private transaction Do lots of random names equal anonymity?
Names Are Linkable (see blockexplorer.com) All FROM sources are effectively the same person (or linked IDs) Almost all TO destinations are payee and payor
Reality of Anonymity As BitCoin “fights fragmentation”, it merges identities As it merges identities, it…well, merges identities There are other models of using BitCoin in which money goes in, stays, and then presumably goes back out Again, it’s amazing how much this looks like a bank. Not saying banks are bad, just don’t tell me BitCoin doesn’t morph into the banking system
So, with this all being said BitCoin is working, today That counts for a lot It will not work this way forever It will not have today’s security properties forever If you define the loss of today’s properties a serious loss of value, then there are Ponzi-ish characteristics in plain view I’m not going to make that claim, however
Conclusion This was just a quick summary BitCoin is actually well designed, if you accept that anonymity and scaling forces the entire present model to be shifted into something that effectively looks like banking I’ll talk about more another time
Let LinkedIn power your SlideShare experience
+
Let LinkedIn power your SlideShare experience
Customize SlideShare content based on your interests
We will import your LinkedIn profile and you will be visible on SlideShare.
Keep up to date when your LinkedIn contacts post on SlideShare
a.) in bitcoin 'supernode' model, everyone can become a bank
b.) you can not do fractional reserve banking easily (or if you do, it gets self-regulated like old times with no central bank)
The difference is not that there are no banks, that's irrelevant. The difference is that there is no central bank. And that is a huge difference. 1 year ago
In slide 17 you mention that SHA-256 is a poor choice of the hash, because it is quick with a GPU and it creates a shortage in GPUs. I argue that it is not a poor choice, because a quick hash means it’s quick to verify (smaller cost to run a wallet). The cost to miners is the same with SHA-256 or bcrypt, because the cost of mining (difficulty) is determined by the demand in Bitcoin, measured in USD. It’s an equilibrium: if mining is too cheap, more miners will start or miners will expand. With SHA-256 we have a GPU shortage, but with bcrypt we could have a motherboard shortage or something. Or maybe FPGAs are best for bcrypt, then we would get a shortage of those.
You do have a point about ananonymity and Bitcoin losing the lightweight atmosphere it has now, those are big disadvantages. Interesting slides!
Also, the people on reddit have some interesting comments: http://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/j9e4a/kaminsky_on_bitcoin/ 1 year ago
@vermorel: My calculations give not even that. The last 20 blocks in Block Explorer have 1086 transactions of 0.43 kB each on average, so say each transaction is half a kB. Then 2000 tps corresponds to 1 MB/s, which is 600 MB/block.
The wiki mentions 60 GB/s, but this is assuming you want to send a 1.14 GB block to your 50 peers which still need to download the entire block, all in a minute. It’s not very likely that those 50 peers only get the data from you, BitTorrent was invented for a reason. P2P works for this kind of distribution.
Note: it’s kind of necessary that block distribution is not too slow, because if miners (pool operators) do not have the latest block, they will generate blocks on top of an older block and we get block chain splits. 1 year ago
On supernodes: As any chess player knows, the threat is greater than the execution. What matters is not how many nodes there are, but how difficult it is to start one. If I don’t like any of the VISA member banks’ policies and I want to issue my own VISA card, I have to get a banking license which usually means seven or eight digit capital requirements and licensing costs, i.e. a huge barrier to entry. For a Bitcoin node, even in the most extreme case (whole world using Bitcoin for everything) I just need a few thousand dollars worth of hardware. (Note that transaction verification and mining are split - you can start a pool without doing any mining and you can become a miner without verifying any transactions.) That is a big difference.
On pools: Pools are not themselves powerful. They don’t have ’41%’, their members do. Meaning if a pool starts behaving in a way that does not serve the self-interest of its members it will lose hashing power quickly. So the question is not ’How big are the pools?’, but ’What is in the self-interest of individual miners?’ Certainly a complex question, but by looking at the pools you’ve completely missed it. 1 year ago