What is Bitcoin Infrastructure?

Recently I was confronted with the idea that “Bitcoin infrastructure companies” consist of the following:

  • wallet companies (hosted or local apps)
  • APIs (block explorers or blockchain analysis)
  • payment processors

As Ryan X. Charles reported from Montreal, among this group apparently “everyone wants the block size to increase”.

Merriam-Webster defines infrastructure as follows:

the underlying foundation or basic framework (as of a system or organization)

Apart from “local apps” (wallets, presumably open source), the list above consists entirely of centralized services. These are not Bitcoin infrastructure by any definition. These are peripheral services that use Bitcoin.

Actual Bitcoin infrastructure (validating wallet, node, miner) developers should be extremely wary of pressure coming from this sector. The business model of each of these types of companies requires centralization. Each would prefer a substantial portion of activity relating to Bitcoin pass through their gateways. Ryan described the group as representing a:

large fraction, if not majority, of bitcoins held, bitcoins transacted and bitcoin API calls made

In other words, it may be that this small group of companies is a gateway for the majority of Bitcoin transactions and is acting as a bank for the majority of coins in existence. It may even be that a large portion of these so-called Bitcoin transactions are actually off chain. It may also be that these so-called Bitcoin wallets are actually custodial accounts.

fox-hen

But even the best of these services (i.e. those who claim you control your own keys and that only transact on chain), with the best of intentions, represent a dangerous centralization trend for Bitcoin. These are hardly the voices that Bitcoin developers should heed.

Good intentions won’t stop these types of services from failing their customers when the shit hits the fan. And when Bitcoin starts to significantly challenge seigniorage revenues, the shit will be all over the room.

Many of the good people in these companies naively believe that Bitcoin is a super-efficient system. They see the core value as cheap and rapid transactions for the masses. Some are even interested in the benefits of sound money or even pseudonymity. They are right, these are ultimately the benefits to the user base (all humans).

What they fail to understand is that these benefits are a strictly consequence of the single innovation of Bitcoin – consensus without trust. This innovation allows Bitcoin users to resist censorship. This censorship resistance is only achieved through decentralization. Some may think that only applies to mining, which is not the case. These business models are themselves the primary threat. Each new user of a centralized service expands the attack surface.

Bitcoin BIP38 Security Advisory

You may use third party services (“printers”) to produce encrypted Bitcoin keys, based on an “intermediate code” that you (“owner”) create independently, and which starts with the letters “passphrase”, such as “passphraseouGLY8yjTZQ5Q2bTo8rtKfdbHz4tme7QuPheRgES8KnT6pX5yxFauYhv3SVPDD”.

If so you are using BIP38, also known as “passphrase-protected private keys”. Libbitcoin developers recently integrated this technology into the development kit.

The encrypted private key produced by the printer typically begins with the letters “6P”, such as “6PnQ4ihgH1pxeUWa1SDPZ4xToaTdLtjebd8Qw6KJf8xDCW67ssaAqWuJkw”.

This standard defines a “confirmation code”, which is another value the owner may receive from the printer, and begins with the letters “cfrm”, such as “cfrm38VUEdzHWKfUjdNjV22wyFNGgtRHYhXdBFT7fWw7cCJbCobryAYUThq4BbTPP15g4SeBsug”.

Payments can be made to the corresponding Bitcoin payment address, in this case “1AoLqsujagqD7NmbQKYBEuhRMnCfwJzGoy”. The owner, using the passphrase originally used to create the intermediate code is the only party who can spend money sent to this address, and is therefore protected from printer malfeasance and ineptitude.

However, I strongly recommend against reliance on the confirmation code. Validating this code with your original passphrase tells you nothing about your ability to spend money sent to its corresponding bitcoin payment address. In fact this code is not useful in any scenario where the printer cannot be trusted by the owner. This lack of trust is of course the reason for both the intermediate code and the confirmation code in the first place.

The only thing that the owner learns from validating the confirmation code is that only the owner could spend money sent to the corresponding address. But this assumes the owner has the corresponding private key. The encrypted private key provided by the printer may be entirely bogus. The only way to know whether you have the necessary private key is to validate the encrypted private key.

You are fine as long as you validate the encrypted private key, but don’t use the confirmation code for anything, even after you have validated the encrypted private key. This validation must include deriving the payment address from the encrypted private key. It is our recommendation that the confirmation code section be struck entirely from BIP38.

Clickypedia

204px-Wikipedia-logo-v2-en.svg

For many years my son and I have played a game we call “clickypedia.” He’s 14 now, so he can no longer sit on my shoulders, or behind me on my office chair, or even on my lap. But we still play once in a while.

We started out by just clicking around on Wikipedia, looking for interesting subjects, occasionally making an edit. At some point he suggested we try to get to another specific topic by following links. Later we would start at the Wikipedia main page and see how few links it would take to locate the topic of choice, alternating at the mouse.

Collaborative Clickypedia Rules

  • The players agree on a topic
  • A browser tab is opened to the Main Page
  • Players take turns clicking links to get to the topic
  • Six Clicks is considered success, fewer is better

More recently it’s become a competition…

Competitive Clickypedia Rules

  • The first player chooses a Random Article as the topic
  • The random button can be clicked no more than 5 times
  • Two additional browser tabs are opened to the Main Page
  • Each player controls one of the tabs
  • The second player clicks a link in his tab
  • The players alternate until the topic is located
  • The winner is the first to locate the topic (no ties)
  • Each click must be completed within 60 seconds
  • All clicks must land on a Wikipedia page
  • Clicks to locations withing a page are not counted
  • Text search within a page is allowed
  • Browser back and forward navigation buttons are counted
  • The reference target page can be viewed during a turn
  • No others sources are allowed for reference

In keeping with the original game, a “time out” is called when an interesting subject is discovered that requires exploration. The click clock is stopped and a new tab is opened to the topic. Once the tab is closed play resumes.

A variation on the collaborative game exists where one player tries to get to the topic and the other tries to move away from it. This was originally a bed time avoidance subterfuge, but is also good fun.

Dark Market : Trade is not a crime

Last night, while you were sleeping, three guys at a hackathon in Toronto created a free market. You are probably thinking, what does that even mean? Before one can fully grasp the importance of this event a little background is in order. The free market is any trade unregulated by the state. The term black market arises from the inability of the state to see and thereby control trade, but applies equally to trade over which the state asserts no control. In a free market each exchange is a voluntary agreement between two parties.

Recent research has shown that the size of the free market globally is roughly 23% of world GDP, down from 26% in the 1960’s. The free market has been in a free fall in Asia, currently at a level of 20%. Sub-Saharan Africa, Latin America and post-socialist regions enjoy free market levels of at least 36%.

shadow economy

Why is the free market declining in the more developed economies and holding its own those that are less developed? It stands to reason that the regulated market is “free enough” in more developed economies, causing more people to “come out of the dark” – accepting regulation as a cost of doing business. Another interpretation is that in the more developed economies trade is more easily controlled. World Bank research shows a strong correlation between “formal account penetration” and per-capita GDP. In other words, wealthier people rely more heavily on banks. A business without financial services in a developed economy is generally at a competitive disadvantage.

account penetration

Account penetration differs enormously between high-income and developing countries in the aggregate: 89 percent of adults in high-income countries, but only 24 percent in low-income countries, report that they have an account at a formal financial institution. – World Bank

Ultimately these are two sides of the same coin. People come out of the dark when their cost of doing business in the regulated economy becomes less than their cost of doing business in the free market. Economically this is a contradiction, since the aggregate cost of doing business in the free market should always be the lowest possible. The catch is that free markets do not exist on a large scale. The means of exchange itself is heavily regulated. In order to trade freely one must either accept unreasonable risk by lugging around piles of cash or join the heavily regulated financial system, with all of its various financial and privacy costs. Cryptocurrency is disrupting this model by enabling trade that does not rely on “formal accounts.” People can trade in cash on a larger scale.

Trading in cash is not illegal, but as we can clearly see in global financial trends, it is going away. It is being replaced by a very expensive and insecure system subject to onerous state-level controls. Developed markets may be “free enough” to sustain this presently, but this is a dangerous trend from a historical perspective. So if trading in cash is legal, and free market trading is legal, why are markets like the Silk Road under state-level attack? On the surface it’s pretty simple, free markets don’t differentiate between legal an illegal trades – that’s the “free” part. So the knee-jerk answer is to shut down the market.

It is not the case that all trades on Silk Road were illicit. Yet all accounts have been closed and 26,000 BTC seized. It only takes a small amount of paranoia to consider that the market itself might have been the target, not illegal trades or even the alleged dark motives of its original operator.

Shut down the black markets take away what little they have, then double the amount of floggings and executions put them on TV. Broadcast them live! Sow fear, more fear. – Plutarch Heavensbee

The beauty of Bitcoin is that nobody is trusted. There is no operator. The protocol cannot commit a crime. This makes it impossible to shut down the system. It’s important to remember however that this does not make it impossible to track down criminals and bring them to justice. It just preserves the rights of the innocent.

The Gift of Satoshi is consensus without trust – we no longer need to accept trust in order to trade. Amir Taaki (libbitcoin and Dark Wallet), William Swanson and Damian Cutillo (both of Airbitz) have in one night given us Dark Market – the first implementation of a Distributed Anonymous Marketplace. The world may never be the same.

In the interest of full disclosure, I work on libbitcoin.

Satoshi Finch

Reading the Newsweek story on Satoshi Nakamoto today I was struck with the same feeling I had when reading the Sports Illustrated story on Sidd Finch (see page 76) in 1985.

sdd_finch

Not because I believed it to be a hoax. When I read the SI story I believed it, we all did. It was crazy and exciting and kind of a bummer when we learned it was an monumental April Fools joke. The Satoshi story is equally enthralling because, like the SI story, it perfect. It’s a story that actually exceeds the expectations of the improbable legend that Satoshi has become.

In this clip he continues to deny any involvement. As the 400 millionaire locks his door he selects a reporter to talk with based on the fact that the reporter is offering him a free lunch. Maybe this is not him, maybe it’s a hoax (sure doesn’t seem like it). But we’re really enjoying it, so Mr. Nakamoto please just keep denying it (and here’s a little something for your trouble). Because as soon as you stop the hoax will have been revealed.

US Congressman Calls for Ban of U.S. Dollar

Colorado Congressman Polis Calls for Ban of U.S. Dollar Bills in Response to Senator Manchin Letter Calling for BitCoin Ban

polis

Bravo Congressman! As our dollars are increasingly transacted electronically and as currency controls continue to tighten even in the US, this is rapidly becoming a question of whether the relative anonymity afforded by cash throughout history will be eliminated entirely.