Thread 60728385

>>60712997
>just query the ledger canister and it will tell you the blockchain
>it's totally decentralized trust me bro
with a real blockchain I can run a lite node and verify the transactions.

>>60728385 (OP)
So an accurate comment from a few days ago triggered you to make this thread? lol.

>>60728385 (OP)
ckBTC total supply is increasing at a faster rate lately.

>>60729305
Likely just Dfinity farming the metric like they did with cycle burning using BOB

>>60728385 (OP)
>>60729380
Cope. I have over 5k pees which is 5 makeit stacks. ICP 2k EOY OK? So I'll have 10M dollarinos soon. Pisschads are going to makeit so hard you fudcucks will rope. 1488 heil moonman btw

>>60729710
Im sitting at 5500 pees. I get like a piss a day. Not the whole lot is staked though

>>60728479
>just query the ledgers
if I cannot INDEPENDENTLY VERIFY the blockchain from the beginning, I can't trust it. They can fake the numbers.
Last thread even said one of the motoko ghost canisters was haxxored..

>>60730226
ICP has been hacked?

>I can't trust it. They can fake the numbers.
These are simple questions that you can ask the AI widget on the website.

>The source code for the ledger canister is publicly available. Users and developers can inspect the code to ensure it implements the expected functionality and nothing more. To further increase trust, reproducible builds allow anyone to verify that the deployed Wasm module matches the published source code. This means you can rebuild the Wasm from source and compare its hash to the one running on the network, ensuring no tampering has occurred.
>Proposals to change the ledger canister (such as upgrades) must be voted on and approved by the community.
>All transactions and state changes in the ledger are recorded in a blockchain structure, with each block cryptographically signed.
>This model is transparent and auditable, and the ledger can be queried to retrieve specific transactions or balances ICP ledger local setup.
>In summary, you can trust the ledger canister because its code and history are transparent and verifiable, it is governed by a decentralized DAO (the NNS), and its operations are secured by cryptographic signatures and consensus.

>>60730296
Yet all it takes is for 20 or so nodes to collude and you would never know cause you can't run your own locally. WASM hash can be spoofed by a malicious subnet, same for data fetched from a canister. Dfinity has effectively full control over system upgrades as they own like 90% of VP on that topic. ICP is not a blockchain but a glorified replicated state machine that can run wasm binaries, which would be ok if it didn't have such stricts limits, e.g instructions limit per message, hard cap of 1k messages per block on each subnet.

>>60730296
>go to ICP's website and ask the ICP AI if ICP is telling the truth
gee I wonder why that might be a problem
>>60730474
DING DING DING we have a winner.

>>60730226
This isn't a traditional blockchain, and should not be compared to it. FYI Only about 10-12 of the top 30 blockchains are verifiable from genesis.

>>60730474
This is why all node providers are DOXXED. If something warranted investigation it can be tracked down to the individuals and they won't be getting away with it. All nodes in a subnet are geographically separated in different countries/continents

>>60728385 (OP)
You are an idiot.

Just because you anyone cannot run a node or verify the blockchain state doesn't mean it's not secure or decentralized.


Low IQ post. Learn about their security model and deterministic decentralization.

Did you ever bother to read the information on their website and their white papers? Have you ever looked at their roadmap and how they are making the system even more secure despite it already being secure.

Go back.

Bitcoin and Ethereum is outdated tech. All you need is ICP.

>>60733311
>Just because you anyone cannot run a node or verify the blockchain state doesn't mean it's not secure or decentralized.
re-read what you just wrote.
>>60732987
>This is why all node providers are DOXXED. If something warranted investigation it can be tracked down to the individuals and they won't be getting away with it.
What's to stop nodes from colluding with each other? If enough collude, it's just a few crying wolf and the rest saying "well we have consensus so YOU must be the bad actor".
And anyway, relying on "law and order" is an inferior idea to using strong cryptography and a good technical architecture.
I think ICP is an interestingly designed network, BUT calling it "decentralized" is misleading.

>>60728385 (OP)
I had lunch with Moonman on his yacht yesterday. Nice guy! I wouldn't believe the lies you hear about him.

>>60733476

They cannot collude since the key is stored inside TEE. So to collude they need to first hack AMD. This is the next update.

They won't collude since they don't know each other and live in different places on earth.

How would you make 40 nodes collude on the biggest subnets? And later when we scale to 100 or 1000 nodes. How would you collude then? If one person sounds the alarm everyone will get prosecuted.

How would they collude without users not noticing their balances changing or losing money?

The cryptography also makes it highly complex to collude.

It would be extremely stupid and risky and impossible with TEE to collude.

>>60733476
And boundary nodes will continue to increase verifiability and transparency over time.

If TVL increases there are ways to adapt to that. Add more nodes and make independent parties verify the nodes.

The bitcoin security model is overengineered and unnecessary. All you need is ICP

>>60733476
Also it's more decentralized than Bitcoin since theoretically there can be one miner who has more than 50% mining power and has happens in the past too.

ICP with 100 nodes you can guarantee that they are 100 different companies from 100 different places on earth.

And can later scale to 1000 or 10000 nodes on very high value subnets.


So decentralization is actually better than bitcoin.

>>60732987
Collusions are very much possible between a handful of individuals, there is already some evidence that a few entities have used figureheads to maximize node provider remuneration. Legal repercussions only happen AFTER you are fucked over and since most providers have no technical background, cause anyone who has some web3 knowledge can tell the project is overhyped af, it means they also have plausible deniability.

Besides the issue isn't just preventing collusions to steal funds, but perhaps even more importantly censorship resistance, providers being doxed works against it and don't give me the "but nodes are run in different countries bullshit". Once globohomo WEF elites set their mind to ban something only 3rd world shitholes might not comply with their directives. Just look at whats happening recently w.r.t web anonimity. If you think that the future internet can be run in servers from countries you can't even place on a map, you're a fool.

>>60733619
TEEs are not perfect, otherwise there'd be no need for more advanced techniques like homomorphic encryption or MCP, they are just another obstacle. It is one of the reasons Dfinity deprioritized TEEs to focus on other stuff.

> How would they collude without users not noticing their balances changing or losing money?

Mint millions of tokens to a random account, they could make it look as if it were coming from unstaked neuron maturity.

>>60733687
>Also it's more decentralized than Bitcoin since theoretically there can be one miner who has more than 50% mining power
how often did that happen in Bitcoin's history?
Bitcoin *is* decentralized because there are lots and lots of competitors. It's impossible for anyone to get a hold of all the computers necessary.
>>60733619
>If one person sounds the alarm everyone will get prosecuted.
Think about that harder. Do you think the current world powers act within the law? Remember the Bitcoin launch: "bailout for banks" - banks screwed things up and got a bailout. Where were the arrests for the 2008 crash? How about arrests of the various military and intelligence agencies for their crimes against their citizens?
In the USA, Waco and Ruby Ridge come to mind. Fast and Furious gun scandal with Mexico. And "the Iran Contra Affair" are notable ones. International collusion. It's not hard to do.
All the operators have to do is set up a private chat. Hell they could use cryptography so that their plan only executes after enough of them agree it will - using homomorphic encrypton / ZK proofs to hide their actual identity while proving they *are* in control of an IC node. Then once a sufficient threshold agree, they fork and no one is the wiser.
Laws vary from country to country, anyway. In some countries it's illegal to criticize the government, or say any word you want, like "nigger". So someone uses a "decentralized" chat to critique their government, and that government pressures Dfinity to shutitdown.jpeg, what do you think happens?
in your magical world where everyone follows the law, the dissident is doxxed and arrested.

>>60733311
>Just because you anyone cannot ... verify the blockchain state ... doesn't mean it's not secure
If I cannot verify the blockchain state, why am I even using it? I might as well be making an HTTP call to a random IP and trusting they're not lying to me.

>>60732987
>This isn't a traditional blockchain
exactly
there is no blockchain

>>60734146
>>60734168
>>60734197
>>60734203

I appreciate the responses. However, I think we have different views of how the world works. Blatantly stealing people's funds would be theft which is illegal in every country on earth. It is not like launching a meme coin, or like launching a failed project like Terra/Luna. It is what SBF did. They would put you in jail and take all your assets away from you.

You're also underestimating the value of the IC network if people overcome the doubts you have.

Then every bank can run on ICP, with competing banks validating the subnet. The possibilities are limitless (which is not the case with Bitcoin, Ethereum or Solana since they do not have user privacy and since they cannot run fully applications).

>>60734146
>>60734168
>>60734197
>>60734203

Your silly attacks won't work in reality. You need 100% of the nodes to work with you. How are you going to trust let's say 39 other parties (if this subnet has 40 nodes), that every is actually in on it and nobody will sound the alarm? And if you have TEEs at the same time with a new key share refreshing every 5 minutes you need to hack that TEE, extract keys within the time limit etc. And what if the network handles billions, we'll now we might have 300 nodes instead of just 40. And the application will provide a hashed public chain with transactions, if just someone saves that hashed chain they will all notice when meddling happens and when balances no longer sync up.

Your attack scenarios are all unrealistic and not possible.

Also, in terms of censorship, it should definitely be possible to do if someone is launching illegal applications? How else to make web3 legitimate?

Also you should know that in 3 years Bitcoin will run on ICP. ckBTC will be the real bitcoin while the old network will be abandoned since it's not quantum resistant.

The critics are really saying:

1) you cannot prosecute theft (some countries are okay with stealing apparently)
2) It's possible to hack TEEs in 2025
3) NNS is dumb enough to not select different validators (they are all just the same person)
4) that NNS is dumb enough to not add more validators as TVL grow
5) It's impossible to detect theft even though transactions are public and in a hashed chain

ICP is centralized and they have been dumping on investors since the beginning.
Same with Polkadot, they just dump on everyone.

Stay away from these. The first obvious red flag was when the super mario canister was given a DMCA Takedown and was removed.

mega storage would be a better option for hosting data.

>>60728385 (OP)

Save this screen shot png and check CMC for the circulating supply.
The end of 2022, the supply was around 400m.

So in approximately 2 years ICP has added 140m tokens.

I think Dfinity is giving the tokens to exchanges for the exchanges to dump. Also while Dfinity dumps their own.

so what is Dfinitys goal in all this? i mean the project has been going for 3-4 years now and there is nothing to show for it. the fuck are all these so called super genuises doing even? jacking off to shemale porn? hell i remember when they were saying, oh the project will reach deflationary status in the spring of 2024 or 2025, well that date has come and gone and ICP is EVEN lower if u can believe it. its now 5, yes fucking 5 DURING a historic bitcoin bullrun. imagine what the price will be when bitcoin dumps to 60 -70 range , its gonna go below zero and you KNOW it. badlands what? i also remember when hey said that Dfinity only has funds if ICP is around the price of 3$ for a year and after that its kaput.

>>60736471
The entire network surrounding this coin is fucking dead. Trust me, I checked all the apps, they're all dead or literal scams. Awful hopeless community and devs

>>60736471

Look at the post above.

take a hard look at the png

>>60733322
Really we should have known when he had a pleb style glassed in gas fireplace instead of a owning a pleb to cut wood and load a comically large stone fireplace.

Wow everyone in this thread is looking out for my financial wellbeing! Thanks guys! I just sold everything, thanks for looking out for me phew that was a close one

>>60736803

The only people who made big on this are dfinity and the exchanges they gave tokens to.

There was a pump from $3.50 to $12.00 a year ago however nothing came of it.

SNS-1 Dragginz people did profit from and that was about it. I think it was a 5x or 10x. However since then everything related to this chain has dumped and the network is not being used. I think something like 5,000 icp are minted daily.

It's a disgusting scam.

>>60737575
Wow I agree so you're a previous bagholder or what's your agenda

>>60737694
>>60729305
He's trying to accumulate more peas for cheapies while he still can. It's clear that ICP is going to end up being the preferred compute layer for Bitcoin. Another ~13.5 BTC or $1.5M added in the last 2 days.

>>60735622
>hashed chain
words have meaning

>>60736471
Domenic doesn't understand the space, because he's lived his whole life in a first world liberal democracy with political stability
he doesn't understand concepts like BFT or self sovereignty, because he never needed it, his life never depended on it
explaining why blockchain exists to crusty old trust fund kids and bitch boys who bootlick their way into life is impossible

>>60730296
>All transactions and state changes in the ledger are recorded in a blockchain structure, with each block cryptographically signed.

>>60735032
>there is no blockchain
>>60738015
>words have meaning

>>60735394
You keep using the authority of law as an argument. I strongly disagree with this notion. Even law disagrees with the idea of law being an absolute guide, as laws change, and evolve.
I bring up the idea of free speech. It is illegal to say "nigger" in the UK. I think it is also illegal to criticize the government there, and in Germany. So, your argument:
>Also, in terms of censorship, it should definitely be possible to do if someone is launching illegal applications?
by this logic, ICP should censor a site critiquing the government. Let's look at another country that's outside of Europe, one that has massive investment in crypto.
https://www.accessnow.org/saudiarabiasafeharbor/
https://www.amnesty.org/en/location/middle-east-and-north-africa/middle-east/saudi-arabia/report-saudi-arabia/
How do you suppose the IC is supposed to respond to a website made on the IC that critiques Saudia Arabian government? I suppose it could block it only within the region of Saudia Arabia?
A distributed network has the opportunity to *defy* government coercion. This is what the hashrate does with Bitcoin. A government can not force a miner to change the transaction history - it is mathematically impossible. Yes, someone could "hard fork", but then they're on their own private network.
>How are you going to trust let's say 39 other parties
I just outlined exactly how you could do it in >>60734197 with zk technology. I hope you understand how that works?

>>60738015
>he doesn't understand concepts like BFT

>The Internet Computer achieves Byzantine Fault Tolerance by employing a sophisticated consensus mechanism that ensures the network can continue operating correctly even when a significant portion of its nodes (replicas) are faulty or malicious.

>>60737973
Yes the transaction history for ICRC canisters is a hash that references the next. Parent hash structure, just like a blockchain. They might even be using merkle trees. But bottom line there is a hash that represent the ICRC state.

>>60738015
>or self sovereignty, because he never needed it, his life never depended on it
yeah interesting point.
>>60735622
How can I know the identities of the NNS valdiators ARE distinct people? Because an ICP website says so? Do you have their pictures, names? Those can be easily faked.
No one has faked the math of bitcoin. And if it happens, it's instantly all over
>>60735463
>in terms of censorship, it should definitely be possible
bootlicker slave mentality. pic related.

>>60738035
I'm not reading this thread because it's full of the same fudders. I don't care who is arguing what. But I will post this reminder -

Canisters can contain illegal content. Boundary nodes are what determine the violations. If someone sets up their own unofficial boundary node, they can serve the canister. It's up to the boundary node to follow the laws in their jurisdiction.

There are also different subnets that adhere to the laws in specific regions.

>>60728385 (OP)
It is absolutely a scam. It was obvious the moment they said long ago that you cannot run nodes, they are run by people who they have formed business relationships with because the nodes host content blablabla. It is not decentralized.

>>60738035
So you are saying that the governments would try to shutdown ICP? But not Bitcoin?

You know how easy it is to ban Bitcoin in a country right? Just make it illegal to ever access the Bitcoin blockchain and now you've banned it.

Why would they ban either ICP or Bitcoin when they are creating regulation to permits these decentralized networks?

Yeah, if someone uploads cp it needs to be taken down. Whats the controversy?

Well, let's say I'm a government body posing as a node in this network. I sign your little zk thingy then I have logs that I can prove in court that x amount of nodes deviate from my state. I can prove I received these signatures from these nodes authorizing this illegal state.

Grow up cypherpunk and realize that ICP is the only chain where you actually host 4chan. You couldn't host 4chan on Bitcoin, Ethereum, Solana or Cardano. Yes, the NNS might ban it in countries where it is illegal to protect itself. But then those people can just use a VPN. I'm sure there are certain countries that ban 4chan or porn websites today as well.

>>60738062
You can take your useless fucking chains and shove them up your ass. You understand that Bitcoin is just a ledger, nothing else, no utility, no assets backing it.

Yes certain type of illegal content needs to be banned for sure.

You really think that's an unsolvable problem to verify they are different entities? You don't think you could get better att solving that through third party investigations and where companies also reveal it.

You want to live in a world where Amazon runs everything, where you can beg to Bezos not to shut down your little website. If he's angry with you then you voice is silenced forever.

Seriously a lot of stupid people in this thread.

>>60738126
You can definitely run a node if you do a serious application. Have you tried? If you haven't tried then you shouldn't talk shit.

>>60738247
I actually did. If you have been here for long enough, remember that ICP /biz/ live chat application? That was my application. It worked for a very long time with no issues.

You cannot run an ICP node. They are hosting providers by definition so Dfinity tells you, you need to host it at a datacenter and prove to them that you have the bandwidth and storage capacity through contractual means. They also say they have enough capacity already and they don't need your nodes so fill this form to be put on a waitlist. We will reach out when we need you.

>>60738290
I haven't really been on /biz/ since 2017, so no, but sounds cool. And tyat sounds totally reasonable to me. You would need a to own a proper data center or something like that. Do I'm sure if you invest in one of those and you put yourself on the wait list that eventually you'll get to run a node. But the application process and waiting list should definitely be public so we can verify nobody is skipping in line etc. These systems can be improved over time and made more transparent.

>>60738383
Yeah we're on the same page but that's not particularly fitting the crypto mindset where you set up a node and you're in business without asking for anyone's blessing.

>>60738508
I know but things will change eventually. People are always skeptical of new ways of doing things.

All I can tell you is that to me it looks like ICP will succeed, even though most people don't understand it at the moment.

>>60737575
>>60736705
>>60736471

this is true for every layer 1 except maybe ETH. Cardano, Polkadot, Cosmos, Avalanche, IOTA, vechain, the list of vaporware scams goes on. The reality is that crypto has a very limited use case. Not everything needs to be decentralized or on a Blockchain. That's why nobody uses any of this shit and hasn't for years. Not going to change

>>60738813
>That's why nobody uses any of this shit and hasn't for years. Not going to change
at the same time it's mainly boomers that are satisfied with the current "just trust me bro" financial system

>>60738056
The hash and tx history is served by a canister, which if compromised could provide apparently legit infos, while in reality the internal state of the chain has been altered.

>>60738104
As of now there are no 3rd party boundary nodes yet and in order to run one you still need to be approved by the NNS. So a government entity could pressure the DAO, which atm is pretty much run by DFINlTY to remove it or face repercussions.

>>60739176
Canisters being compromised? From the start of this thread I've repeatedly skimmed "it will get hacked!"

>>60739191
>unofficial
This would not be managed by the NNS.

>>60739392
It is a possibility, system subnet has ~40 nodes, all it takes is for someone to control 2/3 of them, which isn't that much, providers are doxed which makes it easier to collude or hack them. There is already proof, coming from Dom's best friend, a group of providers has infiltrated the network over the years using figuredheads and shell companies, so far only to maximize node rewards. Who knows what would happen once the network TVL becomes juicy enough.
Up until a few months ago almost all nodes not run by dfinity were managed by aviate labs, cause the providers were real estate agents and trust fund managers with no tech background, so it would have been very much possible to hack the network, luckily this was brought up and the attack surface has been reduced.

>>60739392

> This would not be managed by the NNS.

At this moment there is no plan to do that. Besides as I said, even boundary nodes were decentralized, authorities could still pressure the DAO, a.k.a Dfinity, to remove the content as they have the power to do it.

>>60737958
if they are actually continuing to add like this its a good sign.

>>60740097
ICP is the only L1 that actually lets you build full stack bitcoin apps. Yes you can run lightweight LLMs on it, etc. but the real use case is chainkey tech along with zero trust proofs. This is the real use case.

>>60730474
This

>>60734146
THIS

>>60730474
if you're too stupid to search with AI, there you go, I did it for you:
TL;DR: Most of his claims are wrong or exaggerated:

"20 nodes to collude" - Wrong. Only needs 5 nodes in a 13-node subnet (standard BFT math)
"DFINITY owns 90% voting power" - Completely false. They have ~20%, community has ~60%
"WASM can be spoofed" - Technically possible but requires compromising 1/3+ of subnet nodes, which is extremely difficult due to Chain Key Cryptography
"Not a blockchain" - Pedantic nonsense. All blockchains are replicated state machines. ICP is just a more advanced one
Performance limits - He's actually right about the 1k messages/block limit, but these are deliberate engineering trade-offs for security/determinism

Bottom line: He's mixing some valid technical concerns with straight-up misinformation. The voting power claim alone shows he doesn't know what he's talking about - that's easily verifiable public data.
The real debate should be about ICP's architectural trade-offs (centralization vs capabilities), not made-up statistics.

>>60741296
> Wrong. Only needs 5 nodes in a 13-node subnet (standard BFT math)

Retard I was referring the the system subnet which is where the ICP ledger and NNS are run on, it has more nodes than standard app subnets. By "countering" my statement you highlighted how it is even easier to compromise the average application on the IC

> DFINITY owns 90% voting power" - Completely false. They have ~20%, community has ~60%

That's for the governance topic, which is only used to gather feedback, goverance proposals are essentially temperature checks. On technical topics, the ones used to upgrade the protocol and create/modify subnets DFINITY has ~90%

>>60741296
> Technically possible but requires compromising 1/3+ of subnet nodes, which is extremely difficult due to Chain Key Cryptography

The number is (2/3) + 1. Chain key does nothing to make this harder, it is just a cryptographic technique used to sign transaction with MPC

> ICP is just a more advanced one.

The IC is not a blockchain, it is a distributed and replicated virtual machine that uses a blockchain under the hood to achieve consensus. It keeps a very limited history of the blocks generated in case an emergency recovery is needed and after 2 weeks the old states are deleted.

It doesn't benefit from the properties of a blockchain, like social consensus provided by permissionless nodes, data availability or data immutability. Hell it's not even FOSS.

This is one of Dom's biggest mistakes, he went on to war with other chains claiming ICP is better cause its faster, ignoring that's only possible as essential properties that are expected from a chain have been compromised for the sake of performance.

>>60737694

To let people know this coin is trash and dfinity is just minting and dumping. There are an infinite amount of tokens, there is no limit. Dfinity is absolutely 100% in control of the entire blockchain.

https://decrypt.co/311842/california-judge-dismisses-dfinity-investor-suit-being-time-barred

It's pretty clear the company scammed it's investors and the court cases were thrown out due to a "deadline".

oh look it's been 1 day since my last post of the circulating supply from above.

08/04/25 - 536.22M ICP circulating

08/05/25 - 536.25M ICP circulating

.03M icp minted daily = .9 after 30 days, nearly 1 million tokens are minted monthly.

;)

>>60742118
Solana has 600 mil circulating and infinite supply, so how is this any different?
The coin has inflation if no one uses it and low inflation if they use it, how is this news

>>60741517
In practice it's binance and coinbase that decides if Bitcoin should have a software update or not. Since they decide which chain to accept as "BTC".

ICP is more decentralized since anyone can be part of governance, not just CZ and Brian Armstrong.

Every chain that doesn't have formal governance is a hidden oligarchy.

>>60738189
>I'm not reading this thread because it's full of the same fudders. I don't care who is arguing what.
I'm not entirely convinced the shills ITT are human. One of them proposed that convincing 40 operators to collude was completely unreasonable. And I explained how, with modern cryptography, they could do exactly that, without revealing their identities to each other, they wouldn't need to until they completely compromised the chain by having 100% buy in.
>>60739392
basically the argument is 40 people can collude. I just want the shills to acknowledge that A) it's possible and B) ICP needs a better way to onboard more nodes, in order to be decentralized.
>>60740152
I think the zero trust proofs is where I'm struggling to drink the koolaid.
>>60730474 >>60734146
I actually own ICP, I think it's interesting technology and yes, building a website on chain is novel compared to Ethereum. HOWEVER. Pretending that ICP is truly *decentralized* while also making these technical advancements, is complete bullshit.
>>60738189
You mentioned cp. I mentioned criticizing the government. Seems like you're ok with following the law, whatever it is, instead of enforcing your own morality.
>>60738189
>government body posing as a node
that's funny, I thought the node operators were independent? Governments cannot force bitcoin transactions to stop without censoring the entire network.
>>60738231
>>60738508 THANK YOU. This is is exactly what I'm trying to express. ICP is cool, but shills should stop pretending like it's as decentralized and secure as they claim it is.

>>60741517
Hi-Q post.
>>60741517
>The IC is not a blockchain, it is a distributed and replicated virtual machine that uses a blockchain under the hood to achieve consensus. It keeps a very limited history of the blocks generated in case an emergency recovery is needed and after 2 weeks the old states are deleted.
>It doesn't benefit from the properties of a blockchain, like social consensus provided by permissionless nodes, data availability or data immutability. Hell it's not even FOSS.
>>60742908
if blackrock said "bitcoin should be 42 million", and coinbase forked for them, if you have your coins on your own wallet, you still have your coins
>hidden oligarchy
it's just whatever network people connect to. It's not so hidden, and hash power is far more distributed between entities than IC nodes.

>>60741488
>>60741296
can't you do a fraud with control of just 1 subnet for a few blocks?

>>60744349
ICP is not fully decentralized nor is 100% decentralization a desirable approach. Just look at FLUX and see what a disaster it is. ICP makes some reasonable compromises to achieve excellent performance at scale.

>>60742908
This poster makes a great argument. Resilient DAOs are the future of governance not just for crypto, but for enterprise and sovereign states.

I remember some anon posting he bought at 150 per token or whatever it's called. I hoped it was fake.

>>60744388
I disagree with 100% decentralization being undesirable. I think I agree with the rest of your post, with the caveat that the IC needs MORE nodes.

>>60744349
Once again,
>From the start of this thread I've repeatedly skimmed "it will get hacked!"

B) ICP needs a better way to onboard more nodes, in order to be decentralized.
It's called... The NNS.
There's no reason yet for so many nodes. "it will get hacked!" is not a reason. Nodes need to be paid. And weren't there just proposals to onboard more nodes for Caffeine release?

>if blackrock said "bitcoin should be 42 million", and coinbase forked for them, if you have your coins on your own wallet, you still have your coins
Sure and your coins would be worth $100 if all the miners and community joined Blackrock. See Ethereum Classic.

>>60744413
https://chainspect.app/dashboard/decentralization

>ICP has the highest Nakamoto Coefficient across all blockchains on Chainspect

holding still

i think i see what's happening here. the fudders are aware that their chains cannot compete with icp on any metric, so the only move they can make is to say "icp is not a blockchain, based on my arbitrary criteria." interesting to see that the same criticism is not levied against solana, eth, or any number of other L1s.
solana nakamoto coefficient: 21
eth nakamoto coefficient: 2
icp nakamoto coefficient: 357
yet it's icp that is not decentralized enough.

>>60746474
IC's nakamoto coefficient is way lower than that. The system subnet essentially has power over the entire network and it has 40 nodes, if you can control it then you can force every other subnet to do whatever you want.

I'm not saying you shouldn't hold ICP, but I can't stand all the bullshit shills make up to make it seem better than it is. Many, Dom included, fundamentally don't understand what the IC strengths are, so they sweep its weaknesses under the rug with half truths and copium filled schizo posts.

>>60746843
Thank you. >>60744436 needs to read.

>>60746843
>>60747055
I know the NNS has 40 nodes. And that can be increased over time, why not? Incentives just don't exist today.
Your argument is still "it will get hacked!" (or colluded).

Problem is you are comparing 40 nodes on ICP versus 40 nodes on generic blockchain.
Difference is - KYC, jurisdiction diversity, new hardware security, and even CHAIN KEY cryptography (which someone tried to debunk earlier?). Look up Key Resharing.

Here's a question for you. What's an example of a better blockchain that can host full dapps?
>inb4 it's not a blockchain

>>60746843
yeah Dom is clueless but a random jeet shitposting on biz knows everything

>>60747189

> I know the NNS has 40 nodes. And that can be increased over time, why not?

Cause once you start adding more nodes suddenly the IC is not so fast anymore. The protocol is being developed relying too much on the deterministic decentralization assumption and if we are lucky and higher ups realize it might not be enough before an attack happens, it could still be too late as the amount of work needed to increase the replication factor could take too long.

> Difference is - KYC, jurisdiction diversity, new hardware security, and even CHAIN KEY cryptography (which someone tried to debunk earlier?). Look up Key Resharing.

This assumes that 1) you can reliably KYC individual, which is very iffy as banks have been trying to do that for decades and they still get scammed all the times.
2) Ensuring providers are separate entities is enough to know they are not aligned somehow. There is already proof of this happening btw.

On top of this KYCed providers are more vulnerable to potential attackers and can be more easily targeted by institutions for censorship purposes. No the boundary node bullshit is not enough, if Bibi's intern a.k.a POTUS wants Wikileaks 2.0 gone, he won't simply stop at the CDN that serves the content.

Key resharing only helps if attackers have access for a limited time to the node and take too long to coordinate, it's main purpose is countering key reconstruction by frequent subnet membership changes.

>Here's a question for you. What's an example of a better blockchain that can host full dapps?
>inb4 it's not a blockchain

The IC has lots of potential and has legit use cases, but retards frame it as the end all be all crypto project which is not and by doing so manage to be laughed at by the whole ecosystem and prevent the protocol from actually achieving its full potential.

>>60747191
Just ask anyone who has ever worked with him :D

>>60746474
>>60746843
>>60747055
>>60747055
I'm an ICP investor, and I'm genuinely interested in this tech, so I've taken this to be a learning opportunity for me. Here is what I've found. Nakamoto Coefficient is a metric that measures the decentralization of a blockchain network by indicating the minimum number of independent entities needed to control or disrupt the network. There is no "single" Nakamoto Coefficient (NC) for ICP, but I think it is fair to say that NC=5 for typical application subnets, and NC=12 for the entire network.

If you open the subnet list on the Internet Computer Dashboard, you can see the Nakamoto coefficient listed for every single subnet, including a breakdown by potential actor categories (Node Providers, Data Centers, Data Center Owners, Regions, and Countries). You can see the list of nodes here: https://dashboard.internetcomputer.org/network/subnets?sort=desc-total_nodes

ICP uses a Byzantine Fault Tolerant (BFT) consensus. In BFT networks, to compromise a subnet, an attacker (or colluding operators, which by no means is trivial due to protection mechanisms) must control:
≥33% of nodes to disrupt liveness (halt the subnet).
≥66% of nodes to execute malicious transactions (e.g., double-spend).

A typical application is deployed to an ICP subnet of 13 nodes. Here is a sample subnet: https://dashboard.internetcomputer.org/network/subnets/2fq7c-slacv-26cgz-vzbx2-2jrcs-5edph-i5s2j-tck77-c3rlz-iobzx-mqe

A subnet’s nodes are hosted by different node providers. So to halt a typical application subnet, it would require 5 providers in collusion to freeze the subnet from producing new blocks (⅓) and 9 providers to actually falsify transactions.

There are a few “super-sized” subnets right now. The System (NNS) subnet has 40 nodes. You can see directly on the Internet Computer Dashboard how actors it would take to compromise the network. In this case, it would require 12 node providers to collude to halt the entire network.

>>60747301
I want to add -- Collusion by node providers to tamper with the network is by no means an easy task. The IC-OS is built so that only binaries signed by DFINITY can be executed. To crack this, the node providers (in collusion) would need to defeat hardware root-of-trust, cryptographically pinned IC-OS images, and deterministic execution. This is mathematically improbable to pull off, so at worst, a node provider can shut their machine down, temporarily affecting liveliness (but undoubtedly hurting their SLA so Dfinity kicks them out). Hardware attestation Node providers are incented to maintain uptime with fair rewards.

>>60747253
>Cause once you start adding more nodes suddenly the IC is not so fast anymore
NNS doesn't need to be 1ms. Also - faster hardware, bandwidth improvements. That's all continuously being implemented..

>The protocol is being developed relying too much on the deterministic decentralization assumption
As opposed to... Potentially less decentralization?

>On top of this KYCed providers are more vulnerable to potential attackers and can be more easily targeted by institutions for censorship purposes
We live in a society.
If Brian Armstrong is compromised, what happens to Coinbase Custody's bitcoin?

>if Bibi's intern a.k.a POTUS wants Wikileaks 2.0 gone
I've never heard an american president say "They (Israel) don't know what the fuck they're doing!" That was crazy, huh?

>Key resharing only helps if ..
That's just 1 deterrence. There's also hardware-based security.

Some people are trying to compare an anonymous cryptocurrency like Monero versus a decentralized cloud computing platform.

>>60747301
He is right in that the overall NC is deceiving, only 14 nodes need to collude to cause damage. But he is wrong in assuming how easy it would be, especially compared to every other blockchain in existence. ICP is also "infinitely" scalable.

>>60747301
ty. I too, am an ICP investor. I think the "onchain internet" is super damn cool, as is the ckBTC, ckETH. I just want some honesty about the actual strengths and weaknesses of the IC.
>>60746474
>solana nakamoto coefficient
see >>60747301, his picture shows HALF of that for NNS. Will you admit that the NNS is very centralized and thus, vulnerable to attack?
>>60747353
>We live in a society. If Brian Armstrong is compromised, what happens to Coinbase Custody's bitcoin?
Hopefully Coinbase is using a multisig for their reserves, such that any one person being compromised isn't an issue.
But, such is only a problem when that much coin is put into 1 centralized entity in the first place. If everyone did their own wallet, coinbase wouldn't be necessary so the risks of coinbase wouldn't exist. Users who use coinbase take a risk.

>>60747253
>once you start adding more nodes suddenly the IC is not so fast anymore
It is true that adding adding nodes to existing subnets increases latency, mainly due to the need for BFT consensus. A typical 13-node subnet can finalize blocks in ~1 second but a 40-node subnet needs ~2 seconds. But larger subnets have more compute and storage capacity, as well as higher resilience.

Adding new nodes via subnets doesn't affect speed at all. ICP scales horizontally by adding new subnets which operate in parallel, increasing the entire network throughoutput.

To maintain performance standards, node hardware specs are updated every 1-2 years. There are already whispers of implementing GPU hardware spec in the DeAI technical working group (ensuring determinism is the biggest hurdle). The fact that node providers are Vetted, Doxxed, and Professionally operated is a good thing. ICP is not FLUX where the network is run by raspberry pis in closets and connected via wifi (unusuable, broken network).

>>60747372
Coinbase Custody holds 12%+ of bitcoin, and growing. They hold like 100% of the ETFs.
How many top miners are there, like 5?
I'd say bitcoin is more centralized than this one NNS subnet alone. Which easily can add more nodes.

>>60747353

> NNS doesn't need to be 1ms. Also - faster hardware, bandwidth improvements. That's all continuously being implemented..

It needs to work and a subnet with double the NNS nodes would be too unstable to be usable, there are many bottlenecks that must be addressed first and that's to run light canisters. What happens when complex apps need more decentralization?

> As opposed to... Potentially less decentralization?

Decentralization provided by economic incentives and game theory rather than off chain factors backed by "trust me bro" and I'll sue you if you're a bad boy.

> what happens to Coinbase Custody's bitcoin?

It gets seized? Sold? Network security on PoW is provided by hashrate not token distribution.

> I've never heard an american president say "They (Israel) don't know what the fuck they're doing!" That was crazy, huh?

Off course not, but be sure they'll do whatever they're told.

>>60747372
>If everyone did their own wallet, coinbase wouldn't be necessary so the risks of coinbase wouldn't exist. Users who use coinbase take a risk.
Forgot to address - That's not true. Every bitcoin holder is at risk, unless you don't care about the price of your bitcoin.

>>60747372
>Will you admit that the NNS is very centralized and thus, vulnerable to attack?
It's not like running a bitcoin node where you can just start falsifying blocks. The IC-OS is cryptographically locked down all the way to the hardware layer, in addition to node providers being doxxed.

>>60747303

I'd really like to give you a proper answer, but since it might still be covered by NDA and knowing how litigious certain people can be, I'd rather not take my chances here. All I'm gonna say is once TEEs are implemented for replicas at least it'll be harder to pull of an attack that doesn't actively involve the providers or at the very least it'd be harder for them to claim plausible deniability after.

>>60747445
>I'd really like to give you a proper answer, but since it might still be covered by NDA
Oh brother. Not the heckin NDA

Mind you harder doesn't mean impossible, it just means the right incentives must exist before it's worth it. If certain countermeasures were completely effective, there'd be no need for BFT other than ensuring liveness.

>>60747406
>It needs to work and a subnet with double the NNS nodes would be too unstable to be usable
... Now you're trolling. That's why I only skimmed this troll thread. EASILY it can be increased to 100 nodes with no noticable changes today.

>Decentralization provided by economic incentives
What?
Ok my economic incentive is to breach the NNS and steal all the TVL. There. I am now running all the nodes on the NNS subnet.

>It gets seized? Sold? Network security on PoW is provided by hashrate not token distribution.
You mean to tell me the entire bitcoin community (and the miners) are going to just accept 10-20%, or more of the bitcoin being stolen? It's cool bro, we just continue the blockchain no problem. No hard forks, etc.

>Off course not, but be sure they'll do whatever they're told.
What?

>>60747463
ICP is a middle ground approach that is a reasonable solution to the blockchain trilemma

>>60747466
I'm not, some of the blockers have been addressed in the past year, but at one point enabling a 100 nodes subnet was on both internal and public roadmaps. Then it was deprioritized for some bullshit.

>>60747471
Which is sad, it was supposed and could have been much more.

>>60747445
When is Magnetosphere going to be delivered?

>>60747606
Don't have an exact timeline, all I can say is expect to see boundary nodes and GuessOS TEE implementation sooner. Full replica support is tricky and DFINITY engineers righfully don't give it a very high priority, seeing it more as a nice to have feature. All current implementations of TEE have known vulnerabilities already.

All this kvetching bordering on FUD, meanwhile another $1.7M in ckBTC added in the last 2 days. Apparently Dfinity has done a good enough job to accomplish something. It's not nothing.

>>60747463
What kind of dapps is IC suitable for right now according to you?
DeFi dapps? DAO that governs a DeFi app on another chain? Or simply nothing financial whatsoever at the moment? And at what point would you in that case say financial applications would be safe?
You're saying an attack will occur as soon as there is enough Bitcoin locked?
>>60747508
What is the most urgent change that is needed?

>>60747398
they can crash the price but not corrupt the network.>>60747415
yeah not really. If it -90% tomorrow I would go all in.
>>60747386
>Vetted, Doxxed, and Professionally operated
why are you writing this like you're doing marketing copy??
>>60747442
>falsifying blocks
did you miss the entire previous discussion? Yeah you can start falsifying blocks and you get kicked off the network.
>>60747445
I've been thinking this whole time that there are IC insiders ITT, and this confirms it.
>>60747714
>All current implementations of TEE have known vulnerabilities already.
tell that to >>60733619 .

>>60748120
> You're saying an attack will occur as soon as there is enough Bitcoin locked?

As soon as there is enough TVL secured by the network in general. Right now red hat groups can exploit some vulnerability in a contract/server or bad opsec from dev team and steal hundreds of millions or even billions from protocols with much higher liquidity, so there is no reason for them to coordinate a more complex attack for a few pennies.

> What is the most urgent change that is needed?

Many things, but it'd require a huge shift in the leadership mentality which ain't happening anytime soon. I can tell you what they shouldn't do: spend even an extra dime on Caffeine.

For now I'll take a brake from this thread, I feel I've already given a decent rundown of the state of things, any further interactions will likely consist of circular arguments with the few IC shills left on biz.
I decided to drop some truth cause I partially owe this board, for better or worse it got me into the IC in the first place. I noticed an active thread after months of radio silence and was hoping it had less jeet/schizo posting than the ones from 2021, but was disappointed.
I still hold some pees, hard to let go and you never know, markets are irrational, the protocol is still better than many competitors with high TVL.
The biggest advice I can give to other investors is to dump all they can if, God forbid, Jan ever leaves the Foundation.

>>60747905
Now compare these figures to any other relevant chain. Even arweaves launch had about 5x amount of btc or eth on btc ck holdings on icp for their launch. I understand that was for a token launch but if you look at any wrapped btc they have way more in the pool for those tokens and the liquidity to transfer out to other assets on the chain. ICP has almost 0 liquidity on any of its dexes for this. You can't trade a full ckbtc with ridiculous slippage. That should be priority number 1. Kong attempted this for ckusdc but still needs way more liquidity. Waternueton should have provided liquidity for its wrapped coin but every project that has anything to do with liquidity on icp looks its scam to just gain more voting power to milk voting rewards. ICP itself is a terrible investment but the eco had some potential gems. The problem is the on ramp and the off ramp to icp was almost non existent at the time where you had to go to cex or whatever on ramps they created resulted in no liquidity to easily on ramp or most importantly off ramp where any attraction we had in our eco died. All dfinity has to do is put all of their voting rewards in liquidity for ckbtc, cketh, and any of the additional ck coins but they care more about paying for their payroll.

>>60749739
>Constantly complains "it will get hacked!"
>Signs off by praising Jan, one of the top cryptographers in the world.

>>60749769
>refuses to acknowledge the real problem of liquidity
therefore terrible investment

>>60749748
Small brained take. You can transact as much ckbtc as you want with near instant finality, and convert it back to btc all for less than a penny. Its a wrapped token without any garbage middleman. The idea crypto became popular off of. You will be left behind.

>>60749996
Cool can send my valuable bitcoin to a ck token an have 10+% slippage for swapping it for anything on chain. Therefore you literally cannot use it apart from otc and sending the same coin from a to b. Great fucking chain. The whole point is you should transact with these token with other tokens in a seamless matter without having to worry about fees. Why would anybody invest in the icp eco if they always have to go through a dex. If I'm swapping 1 bitcoin for icp why the fuck would I use any icp dex instead of a cex when the dexes slippage is way worse than the fees, 1 btc to ckbtc to icp to ckbtc to btc would cost you at least $10k in slippage you fucking retard. Again majority of people that use icp are fucking poorfags.

>>60738045
real blockchains have 0TTP BFTs, meaning real BFT
you can do that by PoW or PoS

>>60738030
>>60738056
if you don't have the full history, you can be attacked with state injection and sybil reorgs
they would look like normal valid states, they can only be prevented with a full node

>>60749974
>>60750026
I refuse to read more than 1 sentence per post in this thread.
I agree we need native stable coins.
But you are wrong to assume ckBTC is just for swapping into shitcoins. It's for SPENDING, into dapps, such as Odin Runes, or hopefully many more in the future.

>>60750038
>real blockchains have 0TTP BFTs, meaning real BFT

>There is no reliance on a trusted third party for key distribution, consensus, or state validation. For example, distributed key generation (DKG) is used to avoid a single point of failure in cryptographic key management, and consensus is achieved collectively by the nodes using protocols that tolerate Byzantine faults

>>60728385 (OP)
>ICP is a scam and Moonman is a scammer.
Very amusing to see all these arrogant /pol/ tourists get their shit pushed in.

Get fucked, cunts.

My question is how exactly would you hack it? Let's say nodes are forced to be in tier III to tier IV data centers (which is what has been suggested by DFINITY, I think currently this represents maybe 30% of nodes, but later 100%). And let's say that TEE upgrade happens.
Ok. So now this IC-OS will install on this machine (a specific binary signed by DFINITY, hence you cannot alter this), and once it has been installed you do not have ssh access (there is no way to remotely access machine). Since it's a tier III or IV facility you cannot go there yourself to alter the machine. The only thing you can do is to ask the staff to do specific things (all of which will be documented since this facility deals with bank-grade stuff normally). None of their tasks involve side-channel attacks or anything that would be required to be able to alter the TEE. You cannot go there yourself because it's 24/7 guards and cameras in these facilities.

So I'm asking anyone, how the fuck do you hack this?

1) you cannot modify the software before install 2) you cannot modify it after install 3) you cannot physically visit the location

The next level is that you will get prosecuted (since your identity is known) for performing the master heist. But the heist is fucking impossible in the first place so we don't even need to care about that.

>>60750064
my brother in Christ, block production is done by permissioned actors
the TTP is the NNS

$BOB is pumping sars

>>60728385 (OP)
>ICP is a scam and Moonman is a scammer
Say it, pissbaggots

imagine all this discussion and investigation

this thread is filled with 1000s of hours of "deep dives" and "DD" and "research"

all for nothing

all to miss every opportunity in the world

all just to see piss. sad..

imagine caring about if ICP can be hacked or not

bro it's a bag of sand

you married a bag of sand
fucking lol...........

>>60750026
Who needs shitcoins? Ckbtc is the endgame, the final solution. A innovation so powerful it solves the 'cryptocurrency' debate once and for all. One. Second. Finality. Transactions are literally faster to confirm than you swiping your card at whole foods. No middleman. It couldn't be any more low level. It cant get any simpler.

>>60750039
You need shitcoins and proper dex liquidity, The most successful thing with ckbtc so far was odin and the guy that made that completely fucked it up.
ICP doesn't even have a proper wallet and are not branching out to serious wallets and cexes to use ckbtc as a network similar to lightning or the other networks/wraps.
They've done a terrible job getting anybody to use this. When the easiest route is on ramps and off ramps to icp without cexes to trade shitcoins

>>60750887
And they have failed ridiculously on getting anybody to use it. I really think chain key is cool but their entire approach to this whole thing and getting anybody to use it has been a complete disaster. The same shit will happen with caffeine when it's fully launched.
They do these really cool things but refuse to do the basics to make icp a valuable investment. I have come to the conclusion that they cannot be this fucking retarded and the tokens existence is for their payroll.

>>60728385 (OP)
also play my flappy bird game (made with Claude code)
https://xrelz-5qaaa-aaaad-qhoea-cai.icp0.io/

Good investment:
- branching out to popular mobile wallet to add ck as a network.
-Proper liquidity for on ramping and off ramping ck tokens on dexes
- More use cases in the eco ck

Bad investment:
- ck is on the backend for an application that people don't know what it is and in the chance that application becomes a hit none of the users will know nor care thats it on icp

Again ICP is terrible investment it has cool tech but I will never put a dime into this eco again. There's so many basic things they can be doing that would elevate their level of success, marketing, and users

Infinity....

bump
>>60750454
>what is an intrusion hack
the guards & cameras are probably the weakest point in the chain.
and that's for an EXTERNAL threat. As we've already discussed, only a few nodes need to collude for an INTERNAL one :) are you working with >>60747445, btw, who has acknowledged to be an insider with Dfinity?

>>60747466
>EASILY it can be increased to 100 nodes with no noticable changes today.
then do it.
>>60750038
>if you don't have the full history, you can be attacked with state injection and sybil reorgs
they would look like normal valid states, they can only be prevented with a full node

>>60751047
>>60751055
>>60751060
>>60751087
fuck you dnq (aka raj) you are a dirty faggot southie shitskin. you have been rug pulling icpoors for fucking years. its incredible that you are still here, either you suck at it and haven't made enough money already or you are just some kind of sick pervert

What is this flicking Frick thread guys
What the frick

>>60752947
ICP

>>60750493
>my brother in Christ, block production is done by permissioned actors
the TTP is the NNS
That's you and me and everyone on earth who wants to stake. That's decentralization.

>>60752197
>then do it.
I'm referring to no protocal changes of course.
But if you want more nodes, then why don't YOU do it? Make a proposal. It's up to the DAO. That's decentralization.

>>60752193
No my point is that the guards also protect against internal threat.
You cannot have physical access to the machines in a data center like that. You are not allowed inside the building even. Since there are banks using the servers in those facilities.

The internal threat cannot have software access (since IC-OS prevents it), and cannot have physical access to the machine as the professional data center prevents it.

So if you'd grow some braincells you would understand I was talking about an internal threat, not external.

And if you could go into those facilities it means you could rob banks easily. Just go in there and start playing around with their servers.

>>60753321
It's called a remote hands policy. Only the data center staff can touch the machines.

And to do a side-channel attack on TEE you would need to do some pretty intrusive stuff with liquidity nitrogen.

The staff certainly won't do that for you.

>>60753293
>decentralization
you're confusing decentralization with block production permission, let's not get lost here
the point is you can get veto'ed, it's not straightforward as having the icp to stake and connecting

decentralization is the cost of running and validating a full node, regardless of participating in block production

it's not a serious project, just like pseudo-chains (solana), because having an ultra requirement for sync is not a technological breakthrough, and it's not useful; it's like selling a notebook server that does't have a server, just a connection to a external server; worthless theater
no defi protocol will use this, because it adds nothing

>>60753446
>you're confusing decentralization with block production permission, let's not get lost here
The 'decentralized' staking community is who grants you permission to produce blocks.
The community has decided basement dwelling raspberry pi's are not sufficient.
Therefore the community has opted for the current decentralized node makeup.

>>60753446
A DeFi project can add application-level monitoring to their dapp, they can even add signatures and whatever they want to increase their application level security and verification of transactions.

So yes, serious DeFi projects can absolutely run on ICP. And that would make it 10 times easier to develop their project since compute, storage, frontend, api calls and dao operations is all in one place.

>>60753293
>But if you want more nodes, then why don't YOU do it? Make a proposal. It's up to the DAO. That's decentralization.
I would if I could spin up a node KYC free.. KYC isn't needed for nodes to blacklist/ban each other.
>>60753321
what are your thoughts about the other posts ITT saying that TEE has vulns?

I hope anons randomly clicking here realize at least 2 of the posters here are Dfinity staff/insiders..

>>60754355
Whenever TEEs have vulnerabilities they should get fixed rather quickly. I would imagine they get better every year and huge research teams at AMD and Intel are fixing problems and have been for the past 10 years. It would be extremely hard for anyone to do, maybe 5 people in the world could do it and they would need special inside info only known at AMD or Intel.

So that's the first barrier. The second barrier is that they cannot even access the machine physically. You would need a lot of equipment to do it and are you supposed to bring that into a tier IV security server hall with armed guards??

The third barrier is that you have to do this within a time limit, not sure how long it is, but I think it might be something like 5 minutes, because the internal key refreshes.

Then foruth barrier is need to do this simultaneously at all these locations in different places on earth. Imagine people breaking into the highest level data center facilities across the world to make sophisticated hardware attacks.

Then you have the fifth barrier that is prosecution. You are trying to do some kind of heist, like stealing money from a bank vault. You are definitely going to jail for it. There is no question what you're trying to do.

So it's literally impossible to attack the network when they enable TEE and they also require only tier III or tier IV data centers.

The security is ridiculously high and it can secure billions of dollars of worth of assets, maybe trillions. And more nodes can be added over time to further increase the security.

So my opinion is that most people in this thread are being rather silly.

>>60754355
>I would if I could spin up a node KYC free.. KYC isn't needed for nodes to blacklist/ban each other.
Then you could easily run 5 nodes and collude.

Everyone wants some Monero-like Badlands that can power full dapps and never be hacked. But so far nothing is technologically capable.
This gay little Dfinity project is the closest thing.

>>60754355
Actually performing a double spend on Bitcoin might be easier than hacking ICP. You would only need to target the 2-3 biggest miners in the world and hack their internal systems. Probably a mining facility in Kazakhstan won't have the same security as a tier III/IV server hall.