Security consultant who discussed Bitcoin's early security implications
On January 24, 2009, San Francisco Bay Area security consultant Bill Frantz replied to Hal Finney with a characteristically ironic observation about how Bitcoin’s mining incentives might reshape network-security economics — engaging the same botnet-mining concern Jonathan Thornburg had raised a week earlier, from the opposite angle:
“The 0wned machines are among the most secure on the network because botnet operators work hard to keep others from compromising ‘their’ machines.”
He speculated that botnet operators might evolve into legitimate security firms — protecting computers against compromise in exchange for proof-of-work mining rewards.
Frantz consults under the firm name Periwinkle (pwpconsult.com).
Frantz’s reply directly answered Hal Finney’s argument that proof-of-work tokens create security incentives — the botnet observation quoted above was his ironic response to it. The next day, Satoshi’s own reply to Dustin Trammell picked up the same botnet/proof-of-work economics from the opposite angle, proposing “reverse-spamming” as a market countermeasure rather than Frantz’s ironic security upside.
It was a throwaway, half-ironic line — but it caught something real: the same proof-of-work reward that secures the chain could, in principle, pay the people who run botnets to defend machines rather than exploit them.
1 entries
Bill Frantz ironically observes botnet-controlled machines are 'among the most secure' because operators keep rivals out, speculating operators could become legitimate PoW-funded security firms.