Author: Justus Ranvier 2015-08-31 23:24:25
Published on: 2015-08-31T23:24:25+00:00
The message discusses the decentralized nature of Bitcoin, which allows users to transact without needing to trust a specific party. Transactions can be independently verified and are difficult to reverse or modify. However, it is not accurate to compare Bitcoin to an Excel spreadsheet edited by a trusted third party, as there are limitations even with a centralized system. For example, a single miner cannot falsify ECDSA signatures or generate proof of work without expending energy. They can only defraud transactions and prevent the inclusion of valid transactions into any block using criteria they want. The worst-case scenario for mining monopolization is the risk of profitable double spends and transaction censorship. However, this should not be treated as an end-of-the-world failure case. The weakest area for Bitcoin to be attacked is via censorship enforced by miners. The first line of defense is to improve the privacy features of wallets to the point where blacklists are ineffective. Ultimately, censors would have to choose whether or not to escalate to whitelisting, which can be countered by users switching to a new system that does not have that particular anti-feature. In short, Bitcoin security does not rely on a one-dimensional "centralized vs decentralized" axis, and treating it as such removes clarity needed to solve problems.
Updated on: 2023-06-10T21:33:35.997031+00:00