[Press Release] Can Bitcoin be spent twice or even more when disconnected from the Internet?

Soteria Expert Forum [Summary] Satoshi Nakamoto talked about the Bitcoin network brain split problem. Bitcoin works without the internet. The Internet is only a transmission layer to Bitcoin; satellite signals can replace the Internet. Blockstream's Bitcoin satellites have already launched 5, which is enough to cover most regions. As long as one node imports the longest PoW chain into this large local area network via satellite, then instantly all nodes will begin to recognize this longest chain. This is the characteristic of PoW and the Satoshi Nakamoto consensus.

Soteria hardcore tech community2019.12.26.

Claire: The Russian government announced on Monday that it has completed a series of tests during which the country successfully disconnected the global internet. Testing began last week for several days, involving Russian government agencies, local internet service providers, and local Russian internet companies. The purpose is to test whether Russia's national internet infrastructure (known as RuNet within Russia) works properly without access to the global DNS system and external internet.

Internet traffic has been rerouted internally, effectively making Russia's RuNet the largest intranet in the world. The Russian government did not disclose any technical details about the tests and components of the test system; it only revealed that the government tested several scenarios of network disconnection, including one simulating a hostile cyber attack from abroad. (Excerpt from: “Why are there mixed feelings about Russia's successful disconnection from the global internet?” https://tech.ifeng.com/c/7siG22lJG0e)

Dear gods, is there any difference between this kind of internet disconnection and the current blocking of some websites in China?

Ethan Zhang Yi: RuNet is equivalent to all foreign websites being blocked. The main thing is a domain name server problem; the network itself is distributed.

Claire: That is to say, all websites that are not registered domestically are outside the wall, right?

Ethan Zhang Yi: Understood that way.

Claire: So can China do the same now? Today's social network attacks have become a very threatening method.

Ethan Zhang Yi: China seems to already have a root domain name server, so I'm not afraid of disconnecting from the Internet, but I'm very afraid of our technology being cut off.

Claire: The Chinese government isn't afraid of being cut off from the internet by foreign countries, or are our domestic friends not afraid of being cut off? @Ethan Zhang Yi

Ethan Zhang Yi: Most people in China use Weibo, Douyin, and go to JD Taobao, all on the intranet. Most of the tech players in the group use Stackoverflow, Medium, and Google Search, all outside. Russia is just in case, and they don't want to stop. Disconnecting the internet is equivalent to the Qing dynasty's lockdown.

Claire: Russia doesn't have the foresight of the Chinese government. In fact, the main thing is an ideological united battle, which is reflected in the battle over social networks. What opinions most civilians believe is very important; this has a lot to do with what media and opinions they come into contact with. Indeed, Medium, Google Search is an important source of information. Also, Bitcoin miners are particularly afraid of being cut off the internet... haha

Satoshi Nakamoto talked about the split question. Also, Bitcoin works without an internet connection. The internet is just a transport layer to Bitcoin. For example, using a satellite. Here is Blockstream's Bitcoin satellite, which has already launched 5, which is enough to cover most regions.

Claire: As long as you can connect to a full node that you think is right for you, you can go back to the organization.

Claire: @Evan Liu can it be disconnected from the network if it uses a satellite network transmission?

Evan Liu: Disconnect the internet and telephone networks; they don't affect the satellite. The satellite signal was received using a large pot lid, haha. Russia's network disconnection is only blocked by edge routers; internal communication is still possible. As long as one node imports the longest PoW chain into this large local area network via satellite, then instantly all nodes will begin to recognize this longest chain. This is a characteristic of PoW and the Satoshi Nakamoto consensus, and is unmatched by any other consensus agreement.

Crazy Boy: You should consider completely disconnecting from the internet; the three parties will not be able to communicate with each other until a month later.

Evan Liu: A friend above said that if you break your brain, it will cause three flowers. With this satellite, the consensus ledger can penetrate the blockade, connect both internally and externally, and it will still be a global account, and it won't be double/overspent.

Claire: @Evan Liu, please tell me, is there any difference between the POS mentioned above and POW when it comes to brain fissures?

Evan Liu: @Claire When PoS runs into this issue, it risks falling into a logic package where it can't prove itself. DPoS is just a BFT variant with the word PoS on it. BFT and other kinds of vote-based consensus algorithms can't handle super brain breakouts. Block charts don't work, let alone confirm centralized milestones on time. All in all, don't overestimate Satoshi Nakamoto's IQ, thinking that a consensus algorithm can easily surpass the Satoshi Nakamoto consensus that Satoshi built for Bitcoin.

Claire: Why can't POS prove itself? Can you explain it in detail? This discussion was very constructive! Great!

Evan Liu: POS saves computing power by equalizing the number of staking coins to reduce the difficulty of hash collisions. Computing power is used to prove ledgers. The ledger is used to prove the amount of coins held. The above constitutes a cyclic proof dependency.

Claire: @Evan Liu Mausai opened up.

Xiaowei: POW is a trusted energy consumption (including depreciation) based on a parallel world outside the blockchain. POS is a loss of blockchain's internal world value freeze, and the amount of this value still depends on the external world's private key holder's judgment on the value.

Huang Kaibo: How do you understand depreciation included?

Xiaowei: The outside world: People (humans and silicon-based life) have value judgments, energy, and matter. Matter-energy, on the other hand, has a law of conservation and a law of transformation (E = mc 2). Now advanced things have emerged: energy consumption = value, value = purchasing power, purchasing power = occupation and domination of matter and energy. What if the subjects of value judgment and purchasing power were upgraded from humans to silicon-based humans? So, after repeated discussions, our team felt a bit tingling: Bitcoin's de-human-centered system is a silicon-based human genetic system and engineering. Therefore, both Pow and Pos are consensus mechanisms, but they are definitely not large-scale mechanisms. The difference is huge, just like the primitive Ox Cart PK Wright Brothers aircraft in a means of transport.

Xiaowei: @黄凯波 How do you understand including depreciation? ——The replacement and performance decline of mining rigs is the most important loss of value in mining other than electricity consumption.

GVN: POW and POS are equivalent in terms of chain security (safety). Cornell's Elaine Shi and others have proven this theory. POW has an obvious external physical energy input, but in reality, this “energy” should be understood as a kind of “information”, such as the one defined by thermodynamics. From the perspective of “information,” POS also has external “information” input, that is, staking coins. This information is “external” to the chain.

Xiaowei: @gvn在这个安全性和热力学角度, agree with that point of view. However, new silicon-based human subjects such as human life, value judgments and transfers, and singularity should have other new meanings. Of course, with a new meaning, there is new and even huge room for innovation.

gvn: Blockchain is indeed a new species, and there is a lot of room for innovation in it. Satoshi Nakamoto opened a gap in a new universe for me, but the mythical Satoshi Nakamoto original Bitcoin was also a kind of regression (Bitcoin fundamentalist). Also, “absolute computing power” cannot be used to understand POW and POS. In terms of chain security, it has not been proven that POS is less secure than POW.

Luck2015: Isn't PoS more centralized?

gvn: @大金 That's DPOS.

gvn: “Block charts don't work, let alone confirm centralized milestones on time”

--------------------------

I think the group above mentioned a “tree map,” but why are they saying that the milestones of the tree map (I assume you mean Epoch) are centralized? What's the basis?

Xiaowei: Bitcoin fundamentalism is a category 1.0 of blockchain. Modern blockchain projects with a wide variety of blockchain projects (look at exchange currencies) are 1.X of the blockchain category. However, both categories have quite a few shortcomings, and they cannot guide future innovation. From simple to complex, and from complex to simple, a new classification method, 2.0 classification, is needed. What do you think about this knowledge classification and token problem?

gvn: @小维 Judging from the stage of application development, Bitcoin is 1.0, and Ethereum, which has more rich smart contracts, is 2.0 — in terms of consensus algorithms, they are all 1.0.

Claire: @gvn Please let me know, is the tree like Libra? Anything that can become a chain and form a global consensus is the same as Bitcoin, finding that even a single full node can be connected, right?

gvn: @Claire @魔笛手 The “tree map” is a special kind of blockchain algorithm, and it should be from the “Satoshi Nakamoto Consensus” camp. Libra is a traditional distributed “classical consensus” (BFT) camp, and I don't think Libra is a true decentralized blockchain.

gvn: @Claire It's OK to understand it this way — the key is to meet the “Satoshi Nakamoto Consensus”: Decentralization, Censorship-Resistance, Trustless Trust (Nakamoto Consensus: Decentralization, Censorship-Resistance, Trustless Trust).

Claire: @gvn What do you think of POS issues after disconnecting from the internet?

gvn: Disconnecting from the network is a partitioning issue in traditional distributed systems, and POS is nothing special.

Claire: The problem is that POS also says it's decentralized, censorship-resistant, and “untrustworthy”... For Xiaobai, I don't know how to tell the difference! God V definitely believes that Ethereum 2.0 has this characteristic.

gvn: Yes, as I said before, POS, like POW, is an authentic Satoshi Nakamoto consensus blockchain. The problem is DPOS.

Luck2015: After PoS, nodes with concentrated interests will want to fork.

gvn: @大金 “Node wants to fork” has nothing to do with the Satoshi Nakamoto consensus. POW is the same, and big miners want to fork too (isn't that the case with BCH).

Gong Chen: @gvn What's wrong with DPOS?

gvn: @陈公 I don't think DPOS can be considered the Satoshi Nakamoto consensus blockchain anymore.

Sy.ma: @gvn Big Miner's fork proved not to damage Bitcoin's core position.

gvn: I agree.

Claire: A hard fork is a good thing for groups with serious differences. In my opinion, DPOS does not meet the characteristics of trustlessness. DPOS nodes are licensed nodes, and it is not possible to join or leave at will.

Crazy Mindai: PoS or DPoS is no different from PoW if they all use the longest chain as the winner.

gvn: I generally agree with the statement that DPOS is an alliance chain covered by a public chain. There is an essential difference between the Satoshi Nakamoto consensus and the “classic consensus” of distributed systems; this hurdle cannot be easily mixed up. If it's a “classic consensus,” it's been made a long time ago — Google's data center can achieve a “fast raft” (Fast Raft) of any data combination with thousands of nodes, so what “progress” can be said about the classic consensus of a so-called “blockchain”?

Claire: All nodes are licensed, and there shouldn't be many. Should it be easier to reach consensus? @大金

Gong Chen: @gvn from the beginning of the Genesis block until now. It should be possible to surpass Satoshi Nakamoto in terms of consensus mechanisms, but we know that's not the case. Sometimes I wonder if he's an alien? haha...

luck2015: If all nodes participate in verification and consensus, that is too inefficient.

Claire: @陈公 Is Satoshi Nakamoto an alien? @gvn has discussed this, and I'll read the article for your reference.

gvn: Maybe Satoshi Nakamoto is an alien to divide our human “consensus,” haha.

Claire: @陈公 This post is for reference:

“Soteria Founder: Why Bitcoin Is Outpacing Our Time (full)”

https://m.bihu.com/article/1229015863?i=4Hjv&c=1&s=1laPav

I feel like what Satoshi Nakamoto is considering is not a matter of decades, but a problem of hundreds of years.

Chen Gong: Yes, especially the consensus system and security information on the nodes. He actually used technology to do it, but now we should solve the problems of speed and differentiation. This is probably his homework for us. Haha...

Huang Kaibo: You can slow down your life. Is this another legacy?

Claire: If you want a global consensus, you can't require speed; those that require speed probably don't need to reach consensus. Every person, every group, and every region has a different speed. The speed under the leadership of certain interest groups is definitely faster than a system that requires a global consensus. This depends on what users are asking for...

I think the system that requires speed has evolved quite well. Is there a need for anything that requires global consensus? What is most needed to reach a global consensus? What else besides global currencies?

gvn: Great question! You can try changing the “global” in the question to the “global”. What is the need to reach a “global consensus”?

Confused: @Claire赞!

(End of full text)