BTC or ETH, which is more likely to be wiped out by the US government? (Part A)
translated by Ding HAN and Yalan WANG
Some people are so disgusting that they even dare to lie about technical facts, we need to teach them a good lesson.
In terms of the nodes, BTC has nodes all over the world, and various nodes were set up long ago (including nodes in Darknets and satellite). As for ETH nodes, the ETH ledger is huge and cannot be deployed by the general public, so only a few complete nodes are available. Therefore, you can only send transactions using infura’s services, but infura is a centralized company that takes orders from the US government. Therefore, this potential risk can not be ignored in a chaotic world.
Many don’t know the power of the iron fist, they are obviously newbies, and dare to talk to me that the POS is the future. The Iron Fist is only dealing with Bitcoin hashpower now, it doesn’t even bother to attack the ETH, do you think ETH can hold this kind of strike? Only a handful of nodes store the huge ETH ledger with storage up to TB level, which are so vulnerable. If you don’t believe me, ask scientists whether they are not using infura, the ETH network services will be immediately paralysed if the infura data access port is blocked, not to mention the direct blocking of Amazon and Alibaba cloud services.
Be thankful, if there is no Bitcoin in front of the Iron Fist, ETH will be destroyed in minutes!
Table of Contents
· First, Real block data size of BTC and ETH:
∘ Ⅰ. Node pruning mode
∘ Ⅱ. Size of full node and light node
∘ Ⅲ. ETH’s Archive Node
∘ Ⅳ. ETH BTC node hardware requirements and quantity comparison
∘ Ⅴ.Infura’s centralization problem
· Second, the crackdown measures that U.S. Government may use on cryptocurrencies: technical categories:
∘ Ⅰ. Blocking network data transmission
∘ Ⅱ. Seizure of nodes
∘ Ⅲ. 51% empty block attack
∘ Ⅳ. More secure POS mining
∘ Ⅴ. Attacking developers
First, Real block data size of BTC and ETH:
@TumbleBit The above mentioned people pretend having not read the Bitcoin white paper and they are clearly lying through their teeth for ulterior motives.
Ⅰ. Node pruning mode
The problem of accumulating historical data on the blockchain was taken into consideration in the design of Bitcoin by Satoshi Nakamoto. The solution is described in the Chapter 7 of the White Paper — Reusing Disk Space, in other words, it deletes historical transactions (or keeps the most recent data) and keeps only the latest transaction state (the users’ information and their coin balance ).
Deleting historical transactions has no impact on the system, the only downside is that you can’t see other users’ historical transactions on a non-full node (you can save by yourself all your own trivial size historical transactions)
But how many of you care about other people’s historical transactions? Do you care about a single transaction where Bob bought diaper when he was 5 years old? The most you care about is how many Bitcoins that Bob has now (the latest status).
If you really need to check the historical transactions, contact someone who has a complete history of the data. Similar to a BT download, as long as there is one copy of data on the network, it will be spread on the whole network, and hundreds of GB of the full history of data can be easily stored off-line on a $100 cost hard disk, everyone can afford it, not mention a company.
Ⅱ. Size of full node and light node
One BTC full node currently has456GB, while the light mode only requires 2 GB of storage after using pruned mode. The same is true for ETH , where a full node has 345GB of data storage, while light node only needs 6GB.
Wait, didn’t @TumbleBit say that the full ETH node requires TB level storage? How come there is only 345G data, which is less than
BTC’s 456G? (Data source.bitinfocharts.com Home Blockchain Size)
This is what’s so disgusting about the Bitcoin Core : these bastards even have the audacity to lie about technical facts.
Ⅲ. ETH’s Archive Node
The ETH block data has some TB of storage, where did that come from? ETH block’s original data only has 345G of storage, but if you want to run a query of the entire historical status, you need to run the 345G of data from the beginning to the end , you have to store all the intermediate statuses, (such as a block height, the balance, the contract state, etc.,) You will get several TB of data this way, this type of node is called an archive node .
For example, a Full Node stores the following information for each transaction:
January 1: Bob sends 1ETH to Alice
February 1: Bob sends 2ETH to Alice
March 1: Bob sends 3ETH to Alice
However, this dataset alone does not tell us how much ETH Bob had on March 1st, we need to calculate each transaction starting from the first record. The archive node stores the status for each block:
Alice has 1 ETH on January 1, 00:00
January 1, 00: 13: 1ETH
January 1, 00: 26: 1ETH
(every 13 seconds a block a record, repeat records have compression)
February 1, 00:00: 3ETH
This record query is useful if you want to know how many ETH Alice has on a random day in April. Transactions do not have to be counted individually from day one, but the data is much larger.
In general, you only need to join the archive node for commercial purposes (such as blockchain browsers that provide query services). According to this standard, storage space requires only a few TB for BTC.
(For example, some blockchain browser service providers store a bit higher than 2TB data)
It is disgusting to use the archived nodes with full history of ETH to compare with the full nodes of BTC, these people don`t have any shame, they are deliberately deceiving and misleading the readers, deliberately making them lose money.
This shows why investors with technical background can easily make money because they aren’t easily @TumbleBitscammed by these people :)
Ⅳ. ETH BTC node hardware requirements and quantity comparison
ETH contains 345 GB of block data, but the wallets also generate indexes, caches, snapshots and other files when running.
With all of this added, the GETH wallet can grow up to 578 GB and the Open Ethereum wallet can grow up to 598GB.
BTC has only one Bitcoin Core wallet, with a size of 456GB, there is no essential difference between the two.
Of course, if you want to provide commercial services, you can choose the ETH archive mode (archive node), that size is a few TB, but it is not a required option. Similarly, BTC saves all history increments (for example, if required by a block browser). I asked BTC.com and their size is over 2TB.
BTC node hardware requirements: 2 cores 4GB + 1TB SSD
ETH node hardware requirements: 8 cores 16GB + 2TB SSD
This is similar to the difference between a low-end PC and a midrange PC. Knowing the technical facts above, those lies will be ridiculous @TumbleBit and these people are either stupid or bad.
With a huge TB-size ledger, ETH is vulnerable to attacks and bans because there are only a few nodes in the entire ETH network.
The number of ETH nodes: 6369, BTC: 15013, ETH is only half of BTC, but still in the same range.
If the attack can kill 6,000 nodes but not 15,000 nodes, that is, the midrange computer can be wiped out, but the low-range computers not, you are lying through your teeth.
Of course some Internet trolls will create rumors again, all the ETH nodes are light nodes blah blah blah. Haven’t you any sense at all? What’s the essential difference between ETH wallet 578GB and BTC wallet 456GB?Both of them can active the prune (light node) mode. If you insist that the 578GB is subject to pruning while the 456GB isn’t?
If you’re asking, how many light nodes are there to each of the two? Sorry, neither is known. The number of nodes counted above is by network-wide connection detection statistics, but if light nodes delete historical data, there will be no effect on node operation, so it is impossible to distinguish them from connection detection.
Ⅴ.Infura’s centralization problem
You personally run a BTC full node, if you want to check the transaction, will you open the console command line to check? Obviously not, regular people are checking on the browser.
So are the developers, the infura is equivalent to the developer’s blockchain browser, developers basically run their own ETH full node (it’s convenient for debugging), but for the formal environment online operation, even if they have nodes, they prefer to directly use infura query service as it is more convenient, stable and worry-free than their own nodes. The probability that your own amateur node service will go down is much higher than that professional infrastructures will go down.
As a result, the infura is equivalent to a convenient store operating on your downstairs, it is more convenient than running to the supermarket to do the shopping . But if there was a power outage in the supermarket below, people with ulterior motives began to spread rumors, saying you are going to starve to death.
You can ask the scientists if they are using the infura, if the infura data access port is blocked, will the ETH network services be immediately paralyzed?
Am I going to starve to death? This is a small issue, I can just go to the supermarket and buy the groceries(similarly, I can access to my own ETH node service).
Indeed, infura does the job too well and is too convenient, encouraging everyone to use infura. This is a risk, but doesn’t constitute a risk of ecological extinction, nor a risk of system disruption, rather than a “risk of service interruption.”. Developers (especially for large applications) need to add a standby service (for example, use another service provider such as Quicknode, preferably set up their own node and query service).
As for BTC? BTC’s ecology is so bad that there is no good query service like infura. It’s like a small token that doesn’t even have a blockchain browser and ridicules BTC for having one. This is a big risk if the browser goes down and the transactions can’t be seen, or the “BTC network services will be down soon”, which is so ridiculous.
The above, is the technical facts part, now we know what is false news diffuses farther, faster, deeper and more broadly than the truth. It takes 1000 words to articulate the technical facts behind it to refute the two sentences of disinformation. Be sure to remember the final conclusion:
Wallet size: BTC 456GB, ETH
578GB, Number of nodes: BTC 15013, ETH 6369
Second, the crackdown measures that U.S. Government may use on cryptocurrencies: technical categories:
All crackdown measures have impact, but the magnitude of the impact varies, so the next part will focus on how cryptocurrencies can be completely eliminated.
Ⅰ. Blocking network data transmission
At present, the transaction broadcast, block data, and miners’ mining data of BTC, ETH and other coins’ are all in plain text, which can be easily detected and intercepted from the Internet backbone nodes, but in the technical world, encryption is much simpler than decryption, therefore, this measure has the weakest impact on crypto. I will not elaborate this issue as it has just occurred at a large scale.
Ⅱ. Seizure of nodes
By locating the physical location of the nodes through the node’s IP, the authorities can ask the domestic nodes to turn off and blacklist foreign nodes, the downside of this measure is the high cost of law enforcement as there are tens of thousands of nodes. The foreign nodes can keep changing IP, making the interception impossible, and when necessary, the community can be mobilized to create hundreds of thousands of new light nodes, it is impossible to stop the network from running by taking out only the full nodes.
The defender can also run nodes on anonymous networks such as TOR to hide their real IP addresses, so this crackdown has some impact, but not so much.
Ⅲ. 51% empty block attack
This is the most technically feasible method to completely kill one coin.Although it is expensive to buy and deploy 51% of the network hashpower, why should the U.S. government buy it? Under the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, when national security is jeopardized (e.g., funding an enemy nation, undermining the status of the U.S. dollar), all that is required is a few days of expropriation and a few days of payment for electricity.
After controlling more than 51% of the hashpower, the government can only mine empty blocks (not packaged any transactions), if other miners mine blocks of normal packaged transactions, they will directly ignore this normal block and mine a longer chain with 51% of hashpower to isolate this block (nullify the block), this attack method is known as 51% empty block attack.
The decentralized miners will stop mining one after another within a few days after finding that the blocks they mined are isolated by the U.S. government, and the U.S. government does not have to continue the mining and can shut down most of the requisitioned miners, as long as they maintain 51% of the hashpower.
Normal miners no longer mine, attaking hashpower doesn’t mine Bitcoin, if the normal miners mine n blocks, the attack hashpower only needs to mine one extra block. The cost is very low, someone dares to challenge the U.S. government by launching a hashpower war, does he have enough money to burn?
The impact on the user side is that any transaction sent will not be packaged and confirmed, and the BTC system is completely paralyzed, and Bitcoin prices will drop by an estimated 99.9% after a few months.
Ⅳ. More secure POS mining
POW mining = mining with the hashpower of the mining machine, who has more hashpower, who packs the transactions in the blocks.
POS mining = mining with the pledge days of coins, who pledges more coins, who packs transactions in the blocks.
POW mining cannot solve the 51% empty block attack problem.
Even if you change the algorithm, for example, change the graphics card algorithm, the U.S. government can also commandeer the graphics card mining for attack. If you change to CPU algorithm, coincidentally, the United States has the most supercomputers.
Only POS mining can solve the 51% empty block attack problem, the US government can’t expropriate the coins, like they do to the mining machines.
Developers can add checkpoints to the program even if they are actually requested (or purchased) for $ 5, and if community users agree (all will be updated to this version), the coins involved in the attack will be directly disabled.
Because the coins have address, they can be invalidated in the code, but miners don’t have this feature, how can they be invalidated. By sealing their PQ? Mining machines can simply change the IP to dodge this.
The ETH POS transition code is ready, and it is under the testing. The POS can be switched in emergency, while BTC is not ready to switch to POS, it would take a few months to finish the development, but the price is estimated to drop by99.9% in a few months of paralysis.
I have an advantage, that 99.9% of people can’t reach: the head governs the butt, I only admit the facts ignoring my circumstances.
Although I am a miner, I have no qualms about talking about how POS is far better than POW in terms of attack prevention, however, POW has other benefits, such as fair distribution of coins and huge advertising effects, etc. (Mining is the best way to enter the blockchain industry, and countless investors enter this industry and get rich by mining).
The best condition for ETH has been in the last two years: complete the transition code and prepare to switch to POS, but continue the POW mining until its market cap exceeds BTC (the demand for POW promotion effect is not so great) , then switch to POS.
Ⅴ. Attacking developers
Attacking developers doesn’t make any sense, ETH development is indeed currently led by Vitalik, but Vitalik can’t hurt the interests of the community, can Vitalik order the ETH network to stop at his command?Is it possible to confiscate and freeze users’ ETH?
In the worst case, attacking Vitalik will prevent ETH from upgrading for a moment without affecting ongoing network operations, some fully anonymous developers like Satoshi Nakamoto will emerge to take over the ETH development banner if Vitalik is unable to continue to direct the ETH development.
And the large number of cross-referenced applications on ETH also makes it de facto impossible to split ETH, and these applications choose to continue development on whichever forked chain and that chain is ETH.
1. The wallet size of ETH is slightly larger than that of BTC (578GB vs 456GB).
ETH node hardware requires a mid-range personal computer,
while BTC node hardware requires a low-grade PC.
The number of ETH nodes is smaller than BTC (6369 vs 15013),
but still in the same order of magnitude. When facing the crackdown either they both live or they both die, it is impossible for one to die and other survive.
2, Technically speaking, the 51% empty block attack can completely kill POW coins, POS coins are more resilient to this attack.
Do you think I conclude that ETH is less likely to be wiped out by the US government than BTC? Sorry, the above is just technical facts for those who are interested.
Although 51% empty block attack can perfectly kill BTC, but this must be played in the rules of BTC, the person who thinks the U.S. government will engage in 51% hashpower attack must be dumb. In the eyes of the U.S. government, the difference between 578GB and 456GB seems to be the difference between yellow ants and black ants in the eyes of general public.
Read more from B.TOP:
👉Join us on telegram.
B.TOP, the world’s first joint mining platform, lowers the entry barrier to cryptocurrency mining for anybody anywhere in the world by providing a one-stop solution for enthusiasts and professionals, both retail and institutional, to mine cryptocurrencies from the comfort of their homes or offices. B.TOP purchases the mining machines from the manufacturers, installs them in its industrial scale data centers across China, maintains some of the highest uptimes and charges no extra fee from its users until they have broken even. B.TOP is a wholly owned subsidiary of BTC.TOP.