How could Bitcoin Gold actually suffer from 51% attack?

[SiverSurfer]

Is there so few nodes, or so bad the code that the attacker managed to pull off a 51% attack?

[bob123]

Being vulnerable to a 51% attack does not come from a low amount of nodes.
And it also does not come from 'bad code'.

An malicious actor needs at least 51% of the hashrate to be able to perform a 51% attack.


The reason that BTG was so vulnerable to a 51% attack comes from the extremely low hashrate of the network.
Such an attack would not be efficiently doable on the BTC network, thanks to the high hashrate/difficulty.

BTG was/is not the only coin vulnerable to 51% attacks. A lot of coins do have an extremely low hashrate, which makes it possible to simply rent the necessary hashrate to perform an 51% attack.

High hashrate/difficulty => Low chance of 51% attack and vice versa.

[SiverSurfer]

Being vulnerable to a 51% attack does not come from a low amount of nodes.
And it also does not come from 'bad code'.

An malicious actor needs at least 51% of the hashrate to be able to perform a 51% attack.


The reason that BTG was so vulnerable to a 51% attack comes from the extremely low hashrate of the network.
Such an attack would not be efficiently doable on the BTC network, thanks to the high hashrate/difficulty.

BTG was/is not the only coin vulnerable to 51% attacks. A lot of coins do have an extremely low hashrate, which makes it possible to simply rent the necessary hashrate to perform an 51% attack.

High hashrate/difficulty => Low chance of 51% attack and vice versa.

I guess "hashrate" means computing power?

[Flangler]

Being vulnerable to a 51% attack does not come from a low amount of nodes.
And it also does not come from 'bad code'.

An malicious actor needs at least 51% of the hashrate to be able to perform a 51% attack.


The reason that BTG was so vulnerable to a 51% attack comes from the extremely low hashrate of the network.
Such an attack would not be efficiently doable on the BTC network, thanks to the high hashrate/difficulty.

BTG was/is not the only coin vulnerable to 51% attacks. A lot of coins do have an extremely low hashrate, which makes it possible to simply rent the necessary hashrate to perform an 51% attack.

High hashrate/difficulty => Low chance of 51% attack and vice versa.

This coin is on 25 place on MarketCao. I thought 51% attacks are only possible on small coins with small marketcap. And what happend after attack? How they prevented it?

[SiverSurfer]

Being vulnerable to a 51% attack does not come from a low amount of nodes.
And it also does not come from 'bad code'.

An malicious actor needs at least 51% of the hashrate to be able to perform a 51% attack.


The reason that BTG was so vulnerable to a 51% attack comes from the extremely low hashrate of the network.
Such an attack would not be efficiently doable on the BTC network, thanks to the high hashrate/difficulty.

BTG was/is not the only coin vulnerable to 51% attacks. A lot of coins do have an extremely low hashrate, which makes it possible to simply rent the necessary hashrate to perform an 51% attack.

High hashrate/difficulty => Low chance of 51% attack and vice versa.

This coin has 25 place in marketcap. I though 51% attack are only possible on small coin with small marketcap. And what happend after attack? How they prevented it?

No idea, I read somewhere some millions were lost via double spend and some exchanges suspended BTG because of that.

[Allie Weiss]

It might concern their hash rate, but also their security system and coding might also be faulty too. And if it managed to pull of 51%, then it's the less concerned authority.

[BitcoinHodler]

I guess "hashrate" means computing power?

in a sense, yes. it is the computing power that is used to compute hashes (in case of bitcoin and its forks it is SHA256 hash functions). and it is determined with the number of mining equipment mining the coin (in case of BTG number of GPU rigs).

No idea, I read somewhere some millions were lost via double spend and some exchanges suspended BTG because of that.

i don't think BTG market was big enough for such a big double spend attempt!

[Ariella Maldonado]

Being vulnerable to a 51% attack does not come from a low amount of nodes.
And it also does not come from 'bad code'.

An malicious actor needs at least 51% of the hashrate to be able to perform a 51% attack.


The reason that BTG was so vulnerable to a 51% attack comes from the extremely low hashrate of the network.
Such an attack would not be efficiently doable on the BTC network, thanks to the high hashrate/difficulty.

BTG was/is not the only coin vulnerable to 51% attacks. A lot of coins do have an extremely low hashrate, which makes it possible to simply rent the necessary hashrate to perform an 51% attack.

High hashrate/difficulty => Low chance of 51% attack and vice versa.

An event like that raised a lot of question and it is natural, as a stable coin like that suffering 51% damage is a serious news. However, it has nothing to do with bad code or lower number of node regardless of the percentage. One of the possible reason can be the enough hash-rate acquisition by the attacker.

[Kasen Matthews]

There are 5 cryptocurrencies that has been affected by the 51% attack recently. This attack happens because of the low hashrate of the network. Blockchains with more hashing power are more secure for now.

[Maryscarolan]

An malicious actor needs at least 51% of the hashrate to be able to perform a 51% attack. Such an attack would not be efficiently doable on the BTC network. Thanks to the high hashrate. Being vulnerable to a 51% attack doesn't come from a low amount of nodes.

[BillieCrypt]

None of the cryptocurrencies can be completely protected from the use of high-performance ASICs or supercomputers using quantum technologies. Bitcoin is already mined for the most part by Chinese miners. A possible solution could be to introduce into a protocol the conditions for the geographical separation of the most powerful pools or something like that.

[Invest-or]

In theory any chain can suffer a 50% attack, why not. The issue is if it is worth at all since there is not that much to gain and the cost of doing so would be too large.

[SiverSurfer]

All real decentralized chain can suffer from 51%, if a chain claims that it is impossible to get a 51% attack, then it is a centralized chain.