-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 380
Blockchain Fallacy
There is a theory that property ownership can be secured by immutable claim-keeping, both against claim loss and Custodial Risk.
Given that a claim is not itself the property, control of the property rests with the custodian against whom the claim is made. A custodian has the ability to surrender or retain the property and is therefore a trusted third party. Abrogation of a claim by its custodian is always mitigated by custodian signature, cryptographic or otherwise, with enforcement of the claim left to its holder.
The theory asserts that immutable claim-keeping provides security against loss of the claim by its owner, as nobody else would have an interest in the loss. However, in order to redeem the claim its owner must produce proof of ownership to the custodian. This requires that the owner not lose the secret that proves this ownership. As such the security of the claim against loss is not mitigated at all, it merely changes form. The theory is therefore invalid on the basis of loss prevention.
Storing a strong reference to the claim can reduce the size, and therefore cost, of its immutable storage. The claim may be in the form of a human or machine contract, and referenced as a one way hash. In either case the validation and execution of the contract is required for property transfer by the custodian. Therefore a referenced contract claim compounds loss risk with additional data, the contract.
As shown in Risk Sharing Principle, people are always the basis of security. People may act collectively to protect the immutability of a money, and therefore any claim data associated with control of the money.
However, a custodian is a trusted third party. Immutable claims do not in any way mitigate direct attacks against, or by, a custodian. Where the custodian is the state or is subject to its control, the claim offers no security against the substitution of state authority in place of proven ownership of any claim. The theory is therefore also invalid on the basis of custodial failure.
Bitcoin as a money is non-custodial. Its units do not represent an asset held by a trusted third party. The money is traded directly between customer and merchant. In this sense all merchants are custodians of Bitcoin's value. The blockchain fallacy arises from a misconception of the Bitcoin security model, attributing security to its technology as opposed to its distribution of merchants. The term "blockchain technology" reinforces this error, implying that it is primarily the structure of Bitcoin's data that secures it.
Users | Developers | License | Copyright © 2011-2024 libbitcoin developers
- Home
- manifesto
- libbitcoin.info
- Libbitcoin Institute
- Freenode (IRC)
- Mailing List
- Slack Channel
- Build Libbitcoin
- Comprehensive Overview
- Developer Documentation
- Tutorials (aaronjaramillo)
- Bitcoin Unraveled
-
Cryptoeconomics
- Foreword by Amir Taaki
- Value Proposition
- Axiom of Resistance
- Money Taxonomy
- Pure Bank
- Production and Consumption
- Labor and Leisure
- Custodial Risk Principle
- Dedicated Cost Principle
- Depreciation Principle
- Expression Principle
- Inflation Principle
- Other Means Principle
- Patent Resistance Principle
- Risk Sharing Principle
- Reservation Principle
- Scalability Principle
- Subjective Inflation Principle
- Consolidation Principle
- Fragmentation Principle
- Permissionless Principle
- Public Data Principle
- Social Network Principle
- State Banking Principle
- Substitution Principle
- Cryptodynamic Principles
- Censorship Resistance Property
- Consensus Property
- Stability Property
- Utility Threshold Property
- Zero Sum Property
- Threat Level Paradox
- Miner Business Model
- Qualitative Security Model
- Proximity Premium Flaw
- Variance Discount Flaw
- Centralization Risk
- Pooling Pressure Risk
- ASIC Monopoly Fallacy
- Auditability Fallacy
- Balance of Power Fallacy
- Blockchain Fallacy
- Byproduct Mining Fallacy
- Causation Fallacy
- Cockroach Fallacy
- Credit Expansion Fallacy
- Debt Loop Fallacy
- Decoupled Mining Fallacy
- Dumping Fallacy
- Empty Block Fallacy
- Energy Exhaustion Fallacy
- Energy Store Fallacy
- Energy Waste Fallacy
- Fee Recovery Fallacy
- Genetic Purity Fallacy
- Full Reserve Fallacy
- Halving Fallacy
- Hoarding Fallacy
- Hybrid Mining Fallacy
- Ideal Money Fallacy
- Impotent Mining Fallacy
- Inflation Fallacy
- Inflationary Quality Fallacy
- Jurisdictional Arbitrage Fallacy
- Lunar Fallacy
- Network Effect Fallacy
- Prisoner's Dilemma Fallacy
- Private Key Fallacy
- Proof of Cost Fallacy
- Proof of Memory Façade
- Proof of Stake Fallacy
- Proof of Work Fallacy
- Regression Fallacy
- Relay Fallacy
- Replay Protection Fallacy
- Reserve Currency Fallacy
- Risk Free Return Fallacy
- Scarcity Fallacy
- Selfish Mining Fallacy
- Side Fee Fallacy
- Split Credit Expansion Fallacy
- Stock to Flow Fallacy
- Thin Air Fallacy
- Time Preference Fallacy
- Unlendable Money Fallacy
- Fedcoin Objectives
- Hearn Error
- Collectible Tautology
- Price Estimation
- Savings Relation
- Speculative Consumption
- Spam Misnomer
- Efficiency Paradox
- Split Speculator Dilemma
- Bitcoin Labels
- Brand Arrogation
- Reserve Definition
- Maximalism Definition
- Shitcoin Definition
- Glossary
- Console Applications
- Development Libraries
- Maintainer Information
- Miscellaneous Articles