) wrote an article and describes on a podcast, a scenario that I’ve never heard anyone mention before. We all know that Bitcoin is incredibly secure and anti-fragile, but the following scenario is technically possible, and increasingly likely over a long enough period of time, if the hashrate becomes too centralized, according to Bob. This is a potential „Satoshi’s Heel“ if we don’t pay attention to this. If we imagine the ecosystem of Bitcoin miners as animals in the great plains of Africa, then large miners, (like the publicly traded companies), are the Elephants. Mid-sized sites would be the horses. The smaller sites would be the rabbits of the ecosystem. If the ecosystem contains only elephants, it’s not a well-balanced ecosystem. The existence of horses and rabbits alongside the elephants makes for a much more resilient ecosystem. In Bitcoin mining, large mining sites that rely on grid power are the elephants. These large miners are playing a vital role in balancing energy grids. They work out deals with grid providers to buy up all of the stranded energy when it isn’t needed, and to sell energy back to the grid when it is needed. On the surface, this is fine. The presence of elephants isn’t a problem in and of itself. It only becomes a problem when 90% of the hashrate comes from elephants. We already know that Bitcoin can withstand the shock of more than 50% of the hashrate coming offline very suddenly after the China mining ban of 2021. It worked out fine. But Bob asked the question, what if 99% of the hashrate came offline overnight? What could happen? The Attack Scenario, in Bob’s words „Knowing that the best way to attack Bitcoin is to shake the public’s confidence in its stability and reliability, Bitcoin’s detractors set a course of action to cripple the Bitcoin mining network. So, just before the completion of a difficulty epoch, a consortium of nation states coordinates a hostile shutdown of all captive elephant sites. They do this by forcing utility providers to instantly cut power to all sites, and they deploy troops to prevent the removal of any equipment from the sites. The Bitcoin mining network would be reeling from this blow because it will be 99 times more difficult to process blocks. Instead of taking ten minutes, the expected completion time would be 990 minutes, or 16.5 hours. This would drive the daily transaction capacity of the Bitcoin ecosystem from about 300,000 to just a few thousand. Worse yet, 2,016 blocks must be processed before the next difficulty adjustment, and with the vastly reduced hash capability of the network, this would not occur for another 1,386 days or 3.8 years (assuming no new hash power is added.) Additionally, new bitcoin would be entering circulation at a snail’s pace because money supply increases are completely dependent on the mining of blocks.“ - Bob Burnett Bitcoin would still function, but it would take a day to send a transaction and the public confidence would be shaken. Especially since the attack could continue in perpetuity if governments could actually overcome the Byzantine Generals problem and coordinate with each other successfully. My view is that Bob is right. While we all have our doubts that governments can successfully coordinate with one another, over a long enough period of time, decades, hundreds or even thousands of years, the risk becomes very real. The good thing is that this attack is completely preventable. The antidote is to bring small and mid-sized sites online in proportion to the elephant sites. As long as the elephants don’t control more than 85% of the hashrate (70% to be safe), Bitcoin is not in danger of this attack. But a future scenario where more than 85% of hashrate comes from elephant sites would makes this attack more likely. Keeping the ecosystem balanced is not going to be easy, but it is doable. It will require Bitcoiners to coordinate with one another to ensure that off grid miners are able to secure stranded gas, flared gas, landfill gas, and deals with renewable energy sites, as well as the financing to bootstrap their operations. Here’s a link to Bob’s article and interview. http://tinyurl.com/mpc445kzhttp://tinyurl.com/85ahfmx7
Das ist doch in etwa das Szenario, was ich auch in meiner Vision im Kopf hatte - und welches gerade durch den „gefeierten“ Einstieg der großen Investmentgesellschaften (und Staaten) sehr gut denkbar ist. Was sie nicht verbieten können, eignen sie sich einfach an.
Bommergeneration weiß mal wieder nicht wie man chat gpt verwendet
Der Artikel beschreibt ein potenzielles Szenario für Bitcoin, das als „Satoshi’s Heel“ bezeichnet wird, wenn die Hashrate zu zentralisiert wird. Große Mining-Standorte, verglichen mit Elefanten, sind wichtig, um das Energiegrid auszugleichen. Die Gefahr besteht, wenn über 85% der Hashrate von solchen Elefanten-Sites kontrolliert werden, da ein koordinierter Shutdown durch Nationen die Bitcoin-Transaktionskapazität stark beeinträchtigen könnte. Der Autor, Bob, warnt davor, dass eine solche Attacke das Vertrauen der Öffentlichkeit in Bitcoin erschüttern könnte. Die Lösung besteht darin, kleine und mittelgroße Mining-Standorte proportional zu den großen zu fördern, um die Hashrate auszubalancieren und diese potenzielle Bedrohung abzuwehren. Der Artikel betont, dass dies durch die Koordination der Bitcoin-Community möglich ist, indem Off-Grid-Miner ermutigt werden, erneuerbare Energiequellen zu nutzen.
Edit: Chat gpt schreibt einem, auf Anfrage, sogar einen nicht gnadenlos degerierten Titel
„Bitcoin’s Achillesferse: Risiken durch zentralisierte Hashrate mindern“
Falls du mit ‚Bommergeneration‘ zufällig ‚Boomergeneration‘ meinst (…das sind die, die noch Rechtschreibung und Rechnen gelernt haben…) fühle ich mich mal angesprochen: Ich hatte das schon längst übersetzt (obwohl ich es sogar hätte auf Englisch lesen können), indem ich es via C/P in DeepL kopiert hatte. Dafür brauche ich noch nicht mal ChatGPT…
War eher an den OP gerichtet, der sich für die Expertise anderer nicht die Mühe macht, das halbwegs formschön und informativ zu gestalten.
Hier noch direkt der Kommentar von Chatgpt zu dem Artikel:
Die vorgeschlagene Lösung, kleinere und mittelgroße Mining-Standorte zu fördern, um die Hashrate zu diversifizieren, könnte potenziell dazu beitragen, das Risiko von Angriffen zu mindern, wie im beschriebenen Szenario. Ein ausgewogeneres Ökosystem von Mining-Standorten könnte das Bitcoin-Netzwerk widerstandsfähiger gegenüber koordinierten Angriffen machen. Dies setzt jedoch voraus, dass die Bitcoin-Community und andere Interessengruppen Maßnahmen ergreifen, um diese Diversifizierung zu fördern und sicherzustellen, dass das Netzwerk robust bleibt.
Es ist wichtig zu beachten, dass die Sicherheit von Bitcoin ein komplexes und sich ständig weiterentwickelndes Thema ist. Es erfordert kontinuierliche Diskussion, Forschung und Zusammenarbeit, um potenzielle Risiken zu identifizieren und entsprechende Gegenmaßnahmen zu entwickeln. Es ist auch möglich, dass sich im Laufe der Zeit andere Lösungen oder Ansätze herausbilden, um die Sicherheit und Stabilität von Bitcoin zu gewährleisten.
Der Thread kann damit denke ich von den Mods geschlossen werden und OP kann weiter auf die Suche nach Wall of texts gehen, die er lieblos in Internetforen CopyPasted.
Was mich an ChatGPT so nervt ist dieses redundante Runterleiern von hübsch verpackten Allgemeinplätzen ohne tieferen Wert. Versteht man selbst etwas von der Sache, bringt einen das kaum weiter.
Versteht man jedoch nichts davon und erhofft man sich von ChatGPT eine handliche Zusammenfassung und Einführung in eine Fragestellung, so verfügt man nicht über das notwendige Hintergrundwissen, um die Aussagen zu validieren, insofern sie über Banalitäten hinausgehen.
Aber dank an @Xani
Wenigstens hat der OP nicht einfach ein zweistündiges Video ohne time stamps gepostet.
„Knowing that the best way to attack Bitcoin is to shake the public’s confidence in its stability and reliability, Bitcoin’s detractors set a course of action to cripple the Bitcoin mining network. So, just before the completion of a difficulty epoch, a consortium of nation states coordinates a hostile shutdown of all captive elephant sites. They do this by forcing utility providers to instantly cut power to all sites, and they deploy troops to prevent the removal of any equipment from the sites. The Bitcoin mining network would be reeling from this blow because it will be 99 times more difficult to process blocks. Instead of taking ten minutes, the expected completion time would be 990 minutes, or 16.5 hours. This would drive the daily transaction capacity of the Bitcoin ecosystem from about 300,000 to just a few thousand. Worse yet, 2,016 blocks must be processed before the next difficulty adjustment, and with the vastly reduced hash capability of the network, this would not occur for another 1,386 days or 3.8 years (assuming no new hash power is added.) Additionally, new bitcoin would be entering circulation at a snail’s pace because money supply increases are completely dependent on the mining of blocks.“ - Bob Burnett Bitcoin would still function, but it would take a day to send a transaction and the public confidence would be shaken. Especially since the attack could continue in perpetuity if governments could actually overcome the Byzantine Generals problem and coordinate with each other successfully. My view is that Bob is right. While we all have our doubts that governments can successfully coordinate with one another, over a long enough period of time, decades, hundreds or even thousands of years, the risk becomes very real. The good thing is that this attack is completely preventable. The antidote is to bring small and mid-sized sites online in proportion to the elephant sites. As long as the elephants don’t control more than 85% of the hashrate (70% to be safe), Bitcoin is not in danger of this attack. But a future scenario where more than 85% of hashrate comes from elephant sites would makes this attack more likely. Keeping the ecosystem balanced is not going to be easy, but it is doable. It will require Bitcoiners to coordinate with one another to ensure that off grid miners are able to secure stranded gas, flared gas, landfill gas, and deals with renewable energy sites, as well as the financing to bootstrap their operations. Here’s a link to Bob’s article and interview. 
