| Recurring |
unknown |
The articles do not provide information about a software failure incident happening again at one specific organization or multiple organizations. Therefore, the answer to this question is 'unknown'. |
| Phase (Design/Operation) |
design, operation |
(a) The software failure incident related to the design phase can be seen in the Bitcoin system's vulnerability due to the growing power of the mining group GHash. GHash, a London-based mining pool, was able to amass nearly half of the Bitcoin computing power, which raised concerns about the potential control over transactions and the network. This incident highlights a design flaw in the Bitcoin system where one player could accumulate majority control, undermining trust in the currency [27704].
(b) The software failure incident related to the operation phase is evident in the way GHash, the mining group, was able to gain control over a significant portion of the Bitcoin computing power through its operations. The operation of mining computers by GHash allowed them to amass computing power, leading to concerns about potential control over transactions and the network. This operational aspect of GHash's activities raised alarms about the security and decentralization of the Bitcoin system [27704]. |
| Boundary (Internal/External) |
within_system |
(a) within_system: The software failure incident related to the Bitcoin system's potential takeover by the mining group GHash is primarily within the system. The incident is caused by the growing power of a specific group (GHash) that runs some of the computers behind the Bitcoin network, leading to concerns about centralization and control over transactions [27704]. The failure is rooted in the structure and dynamics of the Bitcoin system itself, particularly in how mining pools operate and the concentration of computing power within GHash.
(b) outside_system: There is no indication in the provided article that the software failure incident related to the Bitcoin system's potential takeover by GHash is due to contributing factors originating from outside the system. The concerns and implications discussed in the article revolve around internal dynamics, such as the concentration of computing power within a specific mining group, rather than external factors. |
| Nature (Human/Non-human) |
non-human_actions, human_actions |
(a) The software failure incident occurring due to non-human actions:
- The software failure incident in this case is not directly attributed to non-human actions but rather to the concentration of computing power by a mining group, GHash, in the Bitcoin network [27704].
(b) The software failure incident occurring due to human actions:
- The software failure incident in this case is primarily attributed to human actions, specifically the actions of the mining group, GHash, which amassed nearly half of the Bitcoin computing power, potentially allowing them to control transactions and undermine trust in the currency [27704]. |
| Dimension (Hardware/Software) |
software |
(a) The articles do not mention any hardware-related failure incident.
(b) The software failure incident mentioned in the articles is related to the control and dominance of the Bitcoin network by the mining group GHash. This incident is not a traditional software failure like a bug or crash but rather a concern about the centralization of power within the Bitcoin network due to the dominance of a single entity controlling a significant portion of the computing power [27704]. |
| Objective (Malicious/Non-malicious) |
non-malicious |
(a) The software failure incident related to the Bitcoin system can be categorized as potentially malicious. The incident involves the mining group GHash amassing nearly half of the Bitcoin computing power, with the ability to control the flow of transactions, freeze people out of the network, and keep all future bitcoins for itself [27704]. This control could undermine trust in the currency, as Bitcoin is built on the premise of existing outside the control of any centralized power. The incident raises concerns about the concentration of power in one entity, which could have detrimental effects on the decentralized nature and trustworthiness of the system.
(b) The software failure incident can also be viewed as non-malicious in the sense that the actions of the mining group GHash may not have been driven by malicious intent to harm the Bitcoin system. GHash has stated its commitment to preserving Bitcoin as a trusted currency [27704]. However, the unintended consequence of amassing majority control over the computing power could still lead to negative implications for the system's integrity and trustworthiness. The incident highlights the potential risks associated with the concentration of power in a decentralized system like Bitcoin. |
| Intent (Poor/Accidental Decisions) |
poor_decisions |
The intent of the software failure incident related to the Bitcoin mining group GHash gaining control of over 50% of the Bitcoin computing power can be attributed to poor decisions. The incident occurred due to the poor decision-making of the mining group in amassing such a significant amount of control over the Bitcoin network, which could potentially undermine trust in the currency [27704]. |
| Capability (Incompetence/Accidental) |
unknown |
Unknown |
| Duration |
temporary |
The software failure incident related to the Bitcoin mining group GHash gaining control of over 50% of the Bitcoin computing power can be considered as a temporary failure. This incident was temporary because it was caused by the specific circumstance of GHash amassing a significant portion of the computing power, leading to concerns about potential control over transactions and the network. The incident was not a permanent failure as it was not a fundamental flaw in the Bitcoin software itself but rather a result of the actions of a specific mining group [27704]. |
| Behaviour |
crash, omission, timing, value, byzantine, other |
(a) crash: The software failure incident related to the Bitcoin mining group GHash gaining control of over 50% of the Bitcoin computing power could potentially lead to a crash scenario. If GHash were to abuse its majority control, it could freeze people out of the network and control the flow of transactions, essentially causing the system to lose its intended state and not perform its functions as expected [27704].
(b) omission: The incident could also be categorized as an omission failure. If GHash were to use its power to keep all future bitcoins for itself, it would be omitting the fair distribution and creation of bitcoins as intended by the Bitcoin system [27704].
(c) timing: In the context of the Bitcoin system, the incident could be seen as a timing failure. If GHash were to manipulate the timing of transactions or freeze people out of the network at specific times, it could disrupt the intended timing of transactions within the system [27704].
(d) value: The software failure incident could also be related to a value failure. If GHash were to control the flow of transactions and potentially manipulate the value of bitcoins by hoarding them, it would be causing the system to perform its intended functions incorrectly in terms of fair value distribution [27704].
(e) byzantine: The incident could be associated with a byzantine failure. If GHash were to act in an untrustworthy or inconsistent manner despite claiming to be committed to preserving Bitcoin as a trusted currency, it would be exhibiting behavior that is erroneous and inconsistent with its stated intentions [27704].
(f) other: The incident could also be categorized as a potential security breach or vulnerability. The fact that a single entity could amass majority control over the Bitcoin network raises concerns about the security and decentralization of the system, which are fundamental aspects of the Bitcoin protocol [27704]. |