By Adam Kodill, a security professional, researcher and developer with 15 years of experience, who specializes in application security, communications and cryptography. The article was published in the author's personal blog on June 21, 2018.

Over the years, the Bitcoin community has changed a lot. From technophiles who could explain the Mercle tree in a dream, to speculators driven by the desire for quick profits and blockchain startups looking for billions of dollars, led by people who don’t even know what a hash tree is. Over time, fanaticism grew around Bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies. It is controlled by people who consider cryptocurrencies to be something much greater than they really are. People who believe that normal (fiat) currencies are a thing of the past, and cryptocurrencies will drastically change the world economy.

Every year, their ranks are growing, and the perception of cryptocurrency is becoming more and more ambitious, even when ordinary cryptocotics put technology on their knees . I firmly believe that a well-designed cryptocurrency can facilitate international transfers and ensure stability during times of strong inflation, but this is still far away. In reality, we have serious volatility, on which speculators profit. Anyone who says that the era of the dollar and the euro is leaving, completely abandoned the objective view of reality.

A small background ...

I read an article describing Bitcoin on the day it was released — an interesting use of hash trees to create a public “ledger” and a fairly reasonable protocol of consistency. Innovative features have attracted the attention of many experts in the field of cryptography. Over the years since the release of the document, Bitcoin has gained value, attracted many people who see it as an opportunity to invest money, as well as loyal (and high-profile) followers who are confident in its revolutionism. We are talking about the latter.

Yesterday, someone tweeted a recent bitcoin block hash on Twitter, and thousands of tweets and other subsequent discussions convinced me that bitcoin had crossed the line and set foot on the true territory of the cult.

It all started with Mark Wilcox's tweet:


The published value is the bitcoin block hash # 528249 . Leading zeros are the result of mining; To mine a block, it is necessary to combine the contents of the block with nonce (and other data), to hash it - and the hash must have a certain minimum number of zeros at the beginning, so that it is considered valid. If not, change the nonce and try again. Repeat until you reach the correct number of zeros at the beginning of the hash, and then you really have a valid block. What impressed people so much is the following numbers: 21–800.

Someone said that this is not a random sequence. As if the miner went far beyond the current complexity, in order not to get the leading zeros, but also the next 24 bits. This requires serious computing power. If someone has the possibility of such a brute force, then it can mean something serious, for example, a significant breakthrough in computing or cryptography.

You may ask what is so important among 21e800 - this is a question that you will surely regret. Some argue that this is a reference to Theory E8 (a widely criticized document, which is a standard field theory) or to the maximum possible number of bitcoins 21,000,000 (although 21 × 10 ⁸ is 2,100,000,000). There are other versions that are just too crazy to write about. Another important fact is that blocks with a value of 21e8 after zeros are extracted on average once a year - they were never considered as something important.

Here the situation becomes funny: theories have appeared, how it happened.

• A quantum computer, somehow capable of hashing with incredible speed. This is despite the fact that in the theories of quantum computing there are no signs of something similar, and hashing is considered to be protected from quantum computing.
• Time travel. Yes, people actually say that someone came back from the future to get this block. I think this is crazy enough not to put forward counter-arguments.
• Satoshi Nakamoto is back. Although there is no activity with Satoshi's secret keys, some have put forward the theory that he has returned and is somehow capable of doing something that no one else can do. Theories do not explain how he can do this.

So basically (as I understand it) Satoshi, in order to calculate what he did, according to modern science, must either:
A) Use a quantum computer
B) Return from the future
C) Both

If all this sounds to you like numerology , you are not alone.

This whole discussion around the special significance in the block hash has revived the discussion around one interesting topic. The primary block of Bitcoin Genesis has an unusual property: unlike all early blocks, in its hash zero not 32, but 43 leading bits are equal to zero. Since the program code that produced the primary block has never been released, it is not known how Genesis was generated. And it is not known what type of equipment was used for mining. Satoshi has an academic background. Perhaps, through the university, he had access to more or less serious computing power. At the moment, the strangeness of the primary unit is of interest to historians, nothing more.

Short Hash Digression

All the hype began with a bitcoin block hash, so it is important to understand what a hash is. And to understand one very important property. A hash is a one-way cryptographic function that creates pseudo-random output based on the data received.

As part of our discussion, this means that for each input you get a random output. Random numbers sometimes look interesting, simply by the very nature of chance and, due to the nature of the human brain, to search for everything in order. If you start looking for order in random data, you will find interesting things - which still do not make sense, because it is just an accident. When a person attributes a significant meaning to random data, it speaks much more about the person himself, and not about the data.

Cult coins

First, let's define a couple of terms:

• Cult: a system of religious veneration and devotion aimed at a particular figure or object.
• Religion: desire or interest to which someone ascribes a higher value.

The Cult coin has many saints. They may not be as great as Satoshi Nakamoto, the pseudonym of the person who created Bitcoin. Satoshi is resolutely defended, attitudes and insights are attributed to him far above the average person and the unsurpassed foresight that leads the world to a new economic order. In combination with the secretive nature of Satoshi and the unknown real name, Cult believers view Satoshi as a truly revered figure.

Of course, with the exception of the followers of another saint who is absolutely right, and any criticism is considered not only as an attack on the saint, but also on themselves. For example, supporters of EOS may believe that Satoshi developed a bad project, but will violently respond to the slightest criticism of EOS: the reaction will be so strong that it can only be compared with the response to the attack of his deity. Those who follow IOTA will react with the same fury; and there are many others.

These adherents refused objectivity and reasonable discussion and allowed fanaticism to cloud the mind. Any discussion of these projects and the people behind them, if it does not include the range of praise, inevitably ends at a level of emotionality that is not justified in discussing technology.

This is dangerous for several reasons:

• Developers and researchers do not notice the flaws. Because of the laudatory flow from the part of the adherents, the developers develop a tremendous look at their abilities. They begin to view criticism as unwarranted attacks, because they can not be wrong.
• Real problems are under attack. Instead of treating issues as technical issues for correction and improvement, they are viewed as attacks by people who wish to destroy the project.
• One coin is above all. Adherents often worship the one and only one saint. Recognizing the quality of another project means recognizing flaws or flaws in one’s own, which they are not ready to accept.
• Prevent real progress. Evolution is cruel, it demands death. It requires projects to fail and the reasons for these failures to be recognized. If the lessons are ignored, if the weak are not allowed to die, then progress stops.

Discussions around many cryptocurrencies and related blockchain projects are becoming more toxic and unacceptable for normal people. A real technical discussion without attacks becomes impossible. A discussion of the real flaws, the flaws that would have buried the design in any other environment, is instantly considered heretical without any analysis of actual claims. Excessive effort is now required to participate in such discussions, so some experts who are aware of significant safety flaws are silent because of their highly toxic environment.

The technology, previously driven by curiosity, the desire to learn and improve, to determine the viability of ideas, is now driven by blind greed, religious fanaticism, complacency and self-exaltation.

I have very few hopes for future projects that encourage this type of fanaticism. And its constant dissemination is likely to harm real research in this area for many years. These are technical projects, some of them are successful, some fail, this is how technology develops. These systems are created by the same normal people with their own shortcomings, like all of us, and there are the same mistakes in projects. Some projects are better than others for specific applications, they are not universal, no project is yet suitable for all use cases. Discussions about these projects should focus on technical aspects for the sake of developing this area of ​​research. Adding religiosity hurts everyone.

[Note: there are many examples of such behavior that could be given, but in the interests of protecting people, I decided to keep examples to a minimum. I have seen too many whom I respect very much and I consider to be friends who have been brutally attacked - I have no desire to draw attention to these attacks and risk resuming them].