Is Bitcoin safe from 51% control with Billionaires?

Question

Is bitcoin really safe from control and drastic rule changes? For bitcoin to change its protocol, 51% of nodes holders have to vote to modify it.

They say 26 billionaires own as much as world's 50% poorest. Overtime, resources will reallocate and billionaires can assume control of wealth.

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2019/jan/21/world-26-richest-people-own-as-much-as-poorest-50-per-cent-oxfam-report

So couldn't billionaires easily take over nodes and make drastic changes? Just curious, I am interested in Bitcoins because it is people's money, however I want to understand this area more.

Gold advisor told me, With physical gold/silver, there are no internet Protocol rules, so people cannot suddenly elect to make changes, etc.

Where did you get the idea that 51% of "node holders" can change the protocol rules? — Murch, Apr 21 '21 at 22:40
https://bitcoin.stackexchange.com/questions/658/what-can-an-attacker-with-51-of-hash-power-do https://hackingdistributed.com/2014/06/19/bitcoin-and-voting-power/ cc @Murch — mattsmith5, Apr 21 '21 at 22:40
Exactly what sort of drastic changes are you worried about, and what would the billionaires stand to gain by making them? — WillO, Apr 21 '21 at 23:02
maybe funnel more money by inflating into their accounts, or make things harder , typical things any central bank would do not sure @WillO — mattsmith5, Apr 21 '21 at 23:17
why is this voted down? trying to learn and assess risk when I invest, instead of using fiat money — mattsmith5, Apr 22 '21 at 01:08
@mattsmith5: I voted this down because you did not engage meaningfully with my clarifying question. Exactly what are you envisioning? I have no idea what "funnel more money by inflating into their accounts" means or what "make things harder" means. What specifically do you imagine someone could do, and what specifically do you think they'd stand to gain by doing it? Nobody can tell you what's wrong with your imaginary scenario if you refuse to tell us what that scenario is. — WillO, Apr 22 '21 at 02:56
hi @WillO https://cbeci.org/mining_map I read here that China controls 65% of mining, so wondering if foreign governments can control the network? — mattsmith5, Apr 22 '21 at 05:14
I'll try just once more and then I'll give up if you continue not to answer: What does "control the network" mean? What exactly are you thinking someone might do and what do you think they might gain by it? — WillO, Apr 22 '21 at 05:17
@WillO meaning they can use the network to print more cryptocurreny, inflate it, and pocket the newly crypto they created, going from say 51% wealth to 90% wealth, that is how fiat central bank inflation works — mattsmith5, Apr 22 '21 at 05:19
So they're going to mine invalid blocks? You still haven't explained how this is going to pay off for them, or how it's going to hurt anyone. I do officially give up now. — WillO, Apr 22 '21 at 05:34
I think this question is being downvoted, because it is based on a misunderstanding of how consensus is established (and neither source seems to support the understanding the question is based on). — Murch, Apr 22 '21 at 15:23

score 4 · Accepted Answer · answered Apr 22 '21 at 04:24

4

So couldn't billionaires easily take over nodes and make drastic changes? Just curious, I am interested in Bitcoins because it is people's money, however I want to understand this area more.

No. Bitcoin works exclusively by agreement. Everyone else in the world can make a change and I can choose not to make that change.

Gold advisor told me, With physical gold/silver, there are no internet Protocol rules, so people cannot suddenly elect to make changes, etc.

But that's a huge disadvantage for gold for two reasons:

If a huge amount of new gold is suddenly discovered, there's nothing that can be done to keep the new gold from being equivalent to the old gold, even though none of the holders of the old gold want that. Sometimes you need to make changes to preserve the same behavior because the world is changing.
If the properties of gold aren't perfect for using it as a store of value (and they're not) you just have to live it.

If what you want is a store of value and a means of exchange, gold's intrinsic value is pure downside. You have to pay full value for it when you buy it, so it doesn't add any extra value from holding. And if the intrinsic value changes, say due to new industrial uses for gold or old industrial uses being replaced, that harms its usefulness as a means of exchange and store of value.

answered Apr 22 '21 at 04:24

David Schwartz

51,554
6
106
178

thanks for the answer, also cbeci.org/mining_map I read here that China controls 65% of mining, so wondering if foreign governments can ever control the network? – mattsmith5 Apr 22 '21 at 05:17
I recently discovered that many people are agreeing that bitcoins are not interchangeable with each other, and are refusing to accept bitcoins that governments can't trace, and will shut down your trading account if you send bitcoins somewhere that governments can't trace. Far less than 50% of users agree on this, but it's happening. – user253751 Apr 22 '21 at 09:44
@mattsmith5 Nope. Miners server at the pleasure of the users. If they don't mine blocks that users are willing to pay them for, then they don't make any money. – David Schwartz Apr 22 '21 at 15:40
@user253751 Exactly. Everyone who interacts with the bitcoin system decides for themselves what they're willing to accept and cannot be forced to accept anything by anyone else. Those who agree sufficiently can interoperate, those who don't cannot. – David Schwartz Apr 22 '21 at 15:41
@DavidSchwartz which leaves the possibility of an outside actor bribing people to change their rules, which is exactly what the government is doing here. – user253751 Apr 22 '21 at 15:42
@user253751 Yep. And you can change your rules to match or not. If you don't change your rules to match, you can't interoperate with those who changed their rules but that's because you can't force others to accept the rules you prefer. It's a complete absence of any coercive mechanisms (between users) with all the good (and bad) that implies. – David Schwartz Apr 22 '21 at 15:43
@DavidSchwartz so billionaires can execute a kind of 51% attack using their influence in the business world (not even costing any hash rate!). They can make it so only the bitcoins they want to be generally accepted are generally accepted. – user253751 Apr 22 '21 at 17:07
2

@user253751 In theory, yes. In practice, no. The value of bitcoin comes the fact that this is not happening. So if they did so, they would destroy the value of the bitcoin under their influence and all the value would stay with those who ignored them. (This is a key difference between bitcoin and non-crypto systems. The value of bitcoin comes from its lack of censorship and bias. To attack it is to destroy it, leaving you with nothing and those who ignored you still there with all the value.) – David Schwartz Apr 22 '21 at 18:39
@DavidSchwartz Except... it is happening. Many people have had their exchange accounts closed because they dared to let their bitcoins interact with "unclean" bitcoins. – user253751 Apr 24 '21 at 13:48
@user253751 That's just an attack on those exchanges, reducing their utility and value. The users simply go elsewhere. – David Schwartz Apr 24 '21 at 16:26
@DavidSchwartz It's an attack on all exchanges that will let you get your fiat currency into them without cops knocking on your door. – user253751 Apr 24 '21 at 17:35
@user253751 Sure, it's just not an attack on bitcoin. – David Schwartz Apr 24 '21 at 18:09
@DavidSchwartz Distinguishing between an attack on bitcoin, and an attack on 90% of the ways to exchange real-world value for your bitcoins, thereby making bitcoin almost worthless, is tricky! – user253751 Apr 24 '21 at 18:19

Murch · Answer 2 · 2021-04-22T18:38:47.490

For bitcoin to change its protocol, 51% of nodes holders have to vote to modify it.

There is no voting, no Bitcoin user can be forced to accept protocol rules they don't agree with: their nodes enforce the rules locally on their own machine. At best, an attacker with a majority of the hashrate can enforce stricter rules than what is already allowed by the current consensus rules. The attacker would achieve this by ignoring any block that doesn't adhere to rules they want to impose and build a longer chain without the block.

Allowing things that are forbidden by the established consensus rules would require the whole ecosystem (or at least the vast majority) to upgrade to the new, more lenient rules by updating the software they run locally. Otherwise, a block that breaks the consensus rules would simply be ignored by all unupdated network participants. Such a rule update is generally referred to as "hardfork" and tends to be met with skepticism. Just being rich doesn't provide any special power to force other users to install new node software, as such, it is unclear how the scenario described would be feasible.

Is Bitcoin safe from 51% control with Billionaires?

2 Answers2