Author: Gregory Maxwell 2015-01-09 14:50:09
Published on: 2015-01-09T14:50:09+00:00
In an email conversation, Mike Hearn discusses the issue of Bitcoin's safety and the potential for malicious miners to break the system. He argues that even a small percentage of malicious miners could cause significant damage to the network. Additionally, he points out that clients cannot enforce that all versions have the same fee attached. Hearn suggests that the ideal scenario would be absolute soundness in the rules (rules that cannot be broken at all), followed by cryptographic soundness (rules that breaking requires P=NP, theft of a secret, or insane luck), economic soundness (rules that cannot be profitably broken), and finally, honesty soundness (rules that hold when the participants follow the rules and aren't faulty). However, as it is impossible to make the entire system absolutely sound or cryptographically sound, users must navigate this risk stack. Hearn also notes that one man's integrity is another man's malice, and so a risk analysis has to import the clarity of judgment, morality, coerceability, personal values, etc. of everyone in the trust chain. This greatly increases the costs of transacting and creates an unequitable environment where some people get unjust rewards and unequal access to justice. In order to mitigate these risks, users of Bitcoin should behave in ways that cannot be harmed by a failure to follow the rules. However, Hearn acknowledges that slipper slope arguments can be slippery and that there are no clear answers. Ignoring the known risks is not a good path forward. Ultimately, users of Bitcoin must weigh the risks and benefits of using the system and decide for themselves what tools they can use and what risks they are willing to take.
Updated on: 2023-05-19T19:39:15.038963+00:00