Bitcoin, schmitcoin. Let's play piggyback on the blockchain

Cryptocash isn't cool any more – and its core mechanism is being hijacked

Bitcoin may have generated countless salacious news headlines, but it’s a cameo player in a much bigger act. The blockchain is the real innovation that that makes Bitcoin work, and could well outlast the upstart currency. But it’s in trouble – and Silicon Valley has forked out millions to try and save it.

The blockchain is a regularly updated ledger detailing all of the transactions on the Bitcoin network. It doesn’t run on any one server, though: it’s decentralized, with countless copies distributed around the network. It’s also cryptographically sealed, so that no one can change it. That’s what stops someone spending Bitcoin, claiming that they didn’t, and trying to spend it again.

Every ten minutes, a new block of data is added to the blockchain, detailing the latest transactions that have taken place. Each block includes a cryptographic hash of all its transactions.

A hash is unique, and is computed based on the transaction data that it represents. If any part of the underlying data changes, the hash changes too. Any fraudster wanting to tamper with a block’s transactions would need to also alter the hash recorded for that block to match the new, fraudulent set of transactions. Given that the computing power distributed around the whole Bitcoin network takes ten minutes to produce the hash, that’s a tall order.

The blockchain uses another trick to further secure itself: every block’s hash also uses the previous block’s hash as an input.

This means that to alter transactions in a block, the fraudster would also have to recompute the hash of the next block, and the block after that, all the way down the chain. That’s practically impossible. Technologically speaking, it’s a beautiful system.

Blockchain bloat

There’s just one problem with the blockchain: it’s huge. At the time of writing, there are around 120,000 transactions each day, and all of them must be hashed into the blockchain. Each block in the blockchain is currently limited to 1Mb in size. This is enough right now, but it won’t be for long.

Mike Hearn, one of the core developers of the software underpinning Bitcoin, predicts that the number of transactions will exceed the network’s current capacity in winter 2016.

Gavin Andresen, chief scientist at the Bitcoin Foundation, has lobbied to increase the maximum size of each block – but changing the code takes time, and getting everyone to update their Bitcoin software will take longer still. Such is the debate about it that he has threatened to work on an alternative version of Bitcoin with Hearn if people don’t agree to increase the size of each Bitcoin block to accommodate more transactions.

The problem may get worse, in part because people are starting to use Bitcoin’s blockchain for far more than just sending money. Businesses drawn by its decentralized transparency and trustworthiness are embedding other information inside Bitcoin transactions to support their own applications. They’re using it to prove that documents exist, to carry document signatures and to build new businesses that let you create and trade your own custom assets.

This is all very innovative but the Bitcoin blockchain was supposed to be a payment network, not a messaging bus for commercial businesses. How damaging this is depends on how companies insert that information, but they’re all bending the network in a way not originally intended.

One of the most common ways for people to use the Bitcoin blockchain for things other than sending money is to send a tiny fraction of a Bitcoin, creating a transaction on the blockchain. They then write a message in a particular part of the transaction’s record, known as OP_RETURN.

If people program their applications to read and act on OP_RETURN messages, then the transaction could be used to represent something else, like the notarisation of an online document, or a blockchain-based secure messaging system.

If these businesses start gaining significant traction, and add transactions irresponsibly, then it could contribute to the crippling of the Bitcoin blockchain.

Similar topics

Other stories you might like

  • Battlefield 2042: Please don't be the death knell of the franchise, please don't be the death knell of the franchise

    Another terrible launch, but DICE is already working on improvements

    The RPG Greetings, traveller, and welcome back to The Register Plays Games, our monthly gaming column. Since the last edition on New World, we hit level cap and the "endgame". Around this time, item duping exploits became rife and every attempt Amazon Games made to fix it just broke something else. The post-level 60 "watermark" system for gear drops is also infuriating and tedious, but not something we were able to address in the column. So bear these things in mind if you were ever tempted. On that note, it's time to look at another newly released shit show – Battlefield 2042.

    I wanted to love Battlefield 2042, I really did. After the bum note of the first-person shooter (FPS) franchise's return to Second World War theatres with Battlefield V (2018), I stupidly assumed the next entry from EA-owned Swedish developer DICE would be a return to form. I was wrong.

    The multiplayer military FPS market is dominated by two forces: Activision's Call of Duty (COD) series and EA's Battlefield. Fans of each franchise are loyal to the point of zealotry with little crossover between player bases. Here's where I stand: COD jumped the shark with Modern Warfare 2 in 2009. It's flip-flopped from WW2 to present-day combat and back again, tried sci-fi, and even the Battle Royale trend with the free-to-play Call of Duty: Warzone (2020), which has been thoroughly ruined by hackers and developer inaction.

    Continue reading
  • American diplomats' iPhones reportedly compromised by NSO Group intrusion software

    Reuters claims nine State Department employees outside the US had their devices hacked

    The Apple iPhones of at least nine US State Department officials were compromised by an unidentified entity using NSO Group's Pegasus spyware, according to a report published Friday by Reuters.

    NSO Group in an email to The Register said it has blocked an unnamed customers' access to its system upon receiving an inquiry about the incident but has yet to confirm whether its software was involved.

    "Once the inquiry was received, and before any investigation under our compliance policy, we have decided to immediately terminate relevant customers’ access to the system, due to the severity of the allegations," an NSO spokesperson told The Register in an email. "To this point, we haven’t received any information nor the phone numbers, nor any indication that NSO’s tools were used in this case."

    Continue reading
  • Utility biz Delta-Montrose Electric Association loses billing capability and two decades of records after cyber attack

    All together now - R, A, N, S, O...

    A US utility company based in Colorado was hit by a ransomware attack in November that wiped out two decades' worth of records and knocked out billing systems that won't be restored until next week at the earliest.

    The attack was detailed by the Delta-Montrose Electric Association (DMEA) in a post on its website explaining that current customers won't be penalised for being unable to pay their bills because of the incident.

    "We are a victim of a malicious cyber security attack. In the middle of an investigation, that is as far as I’m willing to go," DMEA chief exec Alyssa Clemsen Roberts told a public board meeting, as reported by a local paper.

    Continue reading

Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2021