The Bitcoiner Community Denies The Pentagon About Bitcoin “Centralization”

The Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA), a Pentagon entity, has funded a recently published report claiming that Bitcoin is not as decentralized as it is believed.

The investigation was conducted by Trail of Bits, which released a report titled Is the blockchain decentralized? Unintended centralization in distributed accounting. presents a series of arguments that Its purpose is to show how insecure and centralized distributed accounting technology isalso known as the blockchain.

For its analysis, Trail of Bits focused specifically on Bitcoin and Ethereum. The report describes different types of centralization that may exist in this type of network, including those related to authority, consensus, motivation, and software, among others.

Bitcoin and blockchain are not the same thing

Yes good Such a blockchain can be as centralized as its developers wishTo claim that Bitcoin is a centralized network or that it will be very imminent very soon is a statement that requires well-made evidence.

According to some organizations that responded to the DARPA-funded post, the arguments trying to show that Bitcoin is a network that is highly vulnerable to cyber attacks or centralized in any way is flawed.

Bitcoin Responses to Pentagon Funded Report

The strongest response to the Trail of Bits report came from Swan Bitcoin, a company that focuses specifically on providing services related to facilitating BTC savings for its users.

Advertising

In a recent post on Swan’s blog, Jan Pritzker (Co-founder) and Tomer Strolet (Editor-in-chief) explained why many of the arguments in the report in question were flawed.

Among the report’s claims that have been refuted in this blog is that the . symbol Bitcoin can be easily modified by its developers. In this regard, Trail of Bit assures that only four programmers constantly contribute to the development of the network.

Swan’s blog explains that both The activation of the protocol, whether it is modern or modified, depends not on the developers, but on the network of nodes. Those in charge of the Bitcoin nodes are the ones who decide whether to update it to the release with the new feature or not.

Another controversial accusation made by Trail of Bits in its report is that a combination of only four entities (referring to mining pools with the highest hash rate) is sufficient to effectively attack this network. They later added that there are enough incentives for internal attacks on the Bitcoin network.

As for the apparent ease in attacking Bitcoin, 51% attack by one or more simultaneous groups will be instantly combatable. It will be enough for miners to change their group and pass their hash to others who are behaving correctly. The process of changing the pool is simple and quick, so a supposed attack of this kind cannot last forever.

On the topic of incentives, the authors of the Swan blog post argue that this is the exact opposite of what the Trail of Bits claims. managers Contract From Bitcoin they are most interested in a network that runs smoothly And to prevent its violation. Otherwise, they would “waste expensive energy in the real world.”

In total, there are thirteen arguments that Swan makes in detail with those who deny a series of claims about Bitcoin made in the Pentagon-funded report.

The responses of the mining complexes mentioned in the report

Other reactions to the Trail of Bits report came from the mining pools mentioned in the document. One of them was ViaBTC, which is designated as an aggregator that sets the password “123” for all of its accounts.

On this, the group responded that this assertion was false and clarified that they do not assign passwords to any type of account. Both personalization and password change of your account are carried out at the initiative of each user. Special.

Braiins, the company that runs the first ever existing mining pool, Slush Pool, has been more vocal in its response to the Pentagon-funded report. “That’s totally wrong, absolutely everything.” These were the words Briennes referred to in the aforementioned novel with which he began his short story Tweet topic They explain why they believe the claims made by Trail of Bits are false.

In his response, Braiins explains to the researchers responsible for the report that the password placed in the line of code when programming a miner “is an old field used to send additional information to the mining pool.”

In fact, The most common thing that can happen if a password is not set is that someone else can dig into the user account; Who will benefit, because the rewards that someone else extracts will fall into his account.

 

 

 

 

 

Bitcoin Review

Leave a Comment