Charles-Tim (OP)
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1652
Merit: 5089
Leading Crypto Sports Betting & Casino Platform
|
Although, I know little about 51% attack before, but I just want to know more and I browsed online today. Later, I found out these information: https://www.investopedia.com/terms/1/51-attack.asp![](https://ip.bitcointalk.org/?u=https%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2Fnd2XgTi.jpg&t=665&c=7K7dIKWn_c_DqA) This could have another meaning to the person that wrote this. But, this is just not right, people will think bitcoin has been subjected to 51% attack before, and of which it is very wrong. https://www.investopedia.com/terms/1/51-attack.asp![](https://ip.bitcointalk.org/?u=https%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FzjDi7rv.jpg&t=665&c=V3axWAX3nO8HGQ) The article was Updated last year, in May 6, 2019. But this can still mislead people because the present bitcoin mining reward is no more 12.5 btc but now 6.25 btc. I remembered when I joined this forum, when I was a newbie, I read a lot online, but established member on this forum are always correting me before o_e_l_e_o recommended me to read mastering bitcoin. It was so helpful for me and I realized there are many misleading information online. I still remember I read online that a crypto wallet is a software that is used to save bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies. But I later knew that it is actually wrong, bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies are not stored on wallet but on blockchain, wallet only store the keys. My best wallet was coinbase before, I did not have private key and thought I have known a lot. Is this not ridiculous? And all I read online is that coinbase is a very safe and secure wallet. But, not specifying on the fact that custodial wallets do not provide users with private key(s). With the fact that not your private key not you coin on blockchain. This is to let people know how to be very careful of wrong information online, and that this forum has really helped me to know that, and that this forum is really helping people.
|
..Stake.com.. | | | ▄████████████████████████████████████▄ ██ ▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄ ▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄ ██ ▄████▄ ██ ▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀ ██████████ ▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀ ██ ██████ ██ ██████████ ██ ██ ██████████ ██ ▀██▀ ██ ██ ██ ██████ ██ ██ ██ ██ ██ ██ ██████ ██ █████ ███ ██████ ██ ████▄ ██ ██ █████ ███ ████ ████ █████ ███ ████████ ██ ████ ████ ██████████ ████ ████ ████▀ ██ ██████████ ▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄ ██████████ ██ ██ ▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀ ██ ▀█████████▀ ▄████████████▄ ▀█████████▀ ▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄███ ██ ██ ███▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄ ██████████████████████████████████████████ | | | | | | ▄▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▄ █ ▄▀▄ █▀▀█▀▄▄ █ █▀█ █ ▐ ▐▌ █ ▄██▄ █ ▌ █ █ ▄██████▄ █ ▌ ▐▌ █ ██████████ █ ▐ █ █ ▐██████████▌ █ ▐ ▐▌ █ ▀▀██████▀▀ █ ▌ █ █ ▄▄▄██▄▄▄ █ ▌▐▌ █ █▐ █ █ █▐▐▌ █ █▐█ ▀▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▀█ | | | | | | ▄▄█████████▄▄ ▄██▀▀▀▀█████▀▀▀▀██▄ ▄█▀ ▐█▌ ▀█▄ ██ ▐█▌ ██ ████▄ ▄█████▄ ▄████ ████████▄███████████▄████████ ███▀ █████████████ ▀███ ██ ███████████ ██ ▀█▄ █████████ ▄█▀ ▀█▄ ▄██▀▀▀▀▀▀▀██▄ ▄▄▄█▀ ▀███████ ███████▀ ▀█████▄ ▄█████▀ ▀▀▀███▄▄▄███▀▀▀ | | | ..PLAY NOW.. |
|
|
|
jackg
Copper Member
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 2856
Merit: 3071
https://bit.ly/387FXHi lightning theory
|
![](https://bitcointalk.org/Themes/custom1/images/post/xx.gif) |
September 18, 2020, 10:36:18 PM |
|
Why would they think it was subject to a 51% attack before. I'm not sure if the testnet has been subject to one actually (or an isolated version of the blockchain from the start to check its reaction to it).
But yes it is extremely important not to just take some random articles m's word for it no matter how noteworthy the author is, especially in the field of cryptocurrency.
|
|
|
|
Smartvirus
Legendary
Online
Activity: 1540
Merit: 1139
|
![](https://bitcointalk.org/Themes/custom1/images/post/xx.gif) |
September 18, 2020, 11:01:02 PM Last edit: September 19, 2020, 06:02:37 AM by Smartvirus |
|
I don't know to what extent the article pasted in the OP might be, maybe the author used his/her words in the wrong contest that defeats the message he/she wanted to pass across but then, here are my thoughts on the OP. It's no doubt, miners earn the right to confirm transactions, add a new block to the blockchain and get rewards for it and that, the mining challenge becomes more difficult with each increase in miners. Now, this is a step to keep the coin in circulation in check (#increased difficulty with increased miners/block confirmation). I read in a post in the meta board on transaction fees: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=2848987.0So, upon seeing OP I asked myself, can this account for the increased fee as to confirming transactions some months ago due to congestion which recently got better or reduced, probably due to reduced number of miners as most cryptocurrency enthusiast don't fine it rather profitable due to the required gadget, resource not excluding power and the heat that comes along with it and a particular need to keep the system cool and running. What I'm trying to point out is that, probably the author made the wrong choice of words by saying attack and make it look like the miners have a hold on the system which I don't believe they do though, miners are an important and inevitable aspect of cryptocurrency but then, the system works in it's unique way. Again, it says the reward as at 6th May, 2019 when the article was published, the reward was 12.5 which I believe was right as at that time and it's now 6.25 due to the halving that occured recently as supposed. The system has been programmed this way to put the circulating Bitcoin in check as it was meant to be a scares commodity and it goes on. But, saying it would drop to zero and making it seem as though it would crash is wrong. This is the system. Bitcoin serves the purpose to cryptocurrency what gold serves to fiat currencies. A measure of worth amongst other purposes. Again, I might be wrong but, these are my thoughts.
|
|
|
|
Charles-Tim (OP)
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1652
Merit: 5089
Leading Crypto Sports Betting & Casino Platform
|
![](https://bitcointalk.org/Themes/custom1/images/post/xx.gif) |
September 18, 2020, 11:06:25 PM |
|
Why would they think it was subject to a 51% attack before. I'm not sure if the testnet has been subject to one actually (or an isolated version of the blockchain from the start to check its reaction to it).
What the article is trying to convey is that 51% attack is possible on bitcoin blockchain, but the way it was conveyed is so misleading and inaccurate. Bitcoin blockchain with the hashes generated and the way it is generated that is not in a centralized way will makes it not possible as we all know. Which means bitcoin is not subjected to any attack. I don't know to what extent the article pasted in the OP might be, maybe the author used his/her words in the wrong contest that defeats the message he/she wanted to pass across but then, here are my thoughts on the OP.
Exactly. That is what actually happened. The wrong usage can mislead novices.
|
..Stake.com.. | | | ▄████████████████████████████████████▄ ██ ▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄ ▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄ ██ ▄████▄ ██ ▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀ ██████████ ▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀ ██ ██████ ██ ██████████ ██ ██ ██████████ ██ ▀██▀ ██ ██ ██ ██████ ██ ██ ██ ██ ██ ██ ██████ ██ █████ ███ ██████ ██ ████▄ ██ ██ █████ ███ ████ ████ █████ ███ ████████ ██ ████ ████ ██████████ ████ ████ ████▀ ██ ██████████ ▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄ ██████████ ██ ██ ▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀ ██ ▀█████████▀ ▄████████████▄ ▀█████████▀ ▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄███ ██ ██ ███▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄ ██████████████████████████████████████████ | | | | | | ▄▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▄ █ ▄▀▄ █▀▀█▀▄▄ █ █▀█ █ ▐ ▐▌ █ ▄██▄ █ ▌ █ █ ▄██████▄ █ ▌ ▐▌ █ ██████████ █ ▐ █ █ ▐██████████▌ █ ▐ ▐▌ █ ▀▀██████▀▀ █ ▌ █ █ ▄▄▄██▄▄▄ █ ▌▐▌ █ █▐ █ █ █▐▐▌ █ █▐█ ▀▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▀█ | | | | | | ▄▄█████████▄▄ ▄██▀▀▀▀█████▀▀▀▀██▄ ▄█▀ ▐█▌ ▀█▄ ██ ▐█▌ ██ ████▄ ▄█████▄ ▄████ ████████▄███████████▄████████ ███▀ █████████████ ▀███ ██ ███████████ ██ ▀█▄ █████████ ▄█▀ ▀█▄ ▄██▀▀▀▀▀▀▀██▄ ▄▄▄█▀ ▀███████ ███████▀ ▀█████▄ ▄█████▀ ▀▀▀███▄▄▄███▀▀▀ | | | ..PLAY NOW.. |
|
|
|
jackg
Copper Member
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 2856
Merit: 3071
https://bit.ly/387FXHi lightning theory
|
![](https://bitcointalk.org/Themes/custom1/images/post/xx.gif) |
September 18, 2020, 11:14:31 PM |
|
Why would they think it was subject to a 51% attack before. I'm not sure if the testnet has been subject to one actually (or an isolated version of the blockchain from the start to check its reaction to it).
What the article is trying to convey is that 51% attack is possible on bitcoin blockchain, but the way it was conveyed is so misleading and inaccurate. Bitcoin blockchain with the hashes generated and the way it is generated that is not in a centralized way will makes it not possible as we all know. Which means bitcoin is not subjected to any attack. Bitmain a while ago held more than 50% of the hashing capacity on the network - it's why they completely split into 3 different companies with different ownership afaik but they seemed to manage everything in a fairly reasonable manner and have since gone below the 50% threshold by quite a bit. It is possible to hold more the 50% of the hash power but expensive. And it becomes even more expensive if you do shady stuff.
|
|
|
|
khaled0111
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 2632
Merit: 2979
Top Crypto Casino
|
![](https://bitcointalk.org/Themes/custom1/images/post/xx.gif) |
September 18, 2020, 11:15:05 PM |
|
This is why forums are way better than blogs when it comes to learning and getting accurate information. On forums, users can interact with each other and whenever someone posts a wrong information you will see other members who will come and correct it.
Do not trust or believe everything you read online especially on social media platforms and make sure to browse more than one source when looking for answers to your questions.
|
|
|
|
Bitcoin_Arena
Copper Member
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 2114
Merit: 1813
฿itcoin for all, All for ฿itcoin.
|
![](https://bitcointalk.org/Themes/custom1/images/post/xx.gif) |
September 18, 2020, 11:15:33 PM |
|
This is the second time I am seeing someone point out wrong information about bitcoin in an article from investopedia. It's a shame because have always considered as a good place for people to learn a lot of thing especially trading.
There's a lot of misinformation out there, that how newbies end up with bad wallets like Coinbase and Blockchain.com
|
|
|
|
jackg
Copper Member
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 2856
Merit: 3071
https://bit.ly/387FXHi lightning theory
|
![](https://bitcointalk.org/Themes/custom1/images/post/xx.gif) |
September 19, 2020, 01:47:25 AM |
|
Bitmain a while ago held more than 50% of the hashing capacity on the network - it's why they completely split into 3 different companies with different ownership afaik but they seemed to manage everything in a fairly reasonable manner and have since gone below the 50% threshold by quite a bit. It is possible to hold more the 50% of the hash power but expensive. And it becomes even more expensive if you do shady stuff.
Bitmain is the owner of the antpool, antpool has been the largest bitcoin mining pool at one time before, but they have never had more than 50% mining hashrate capacity before. You can check the thread below posted by tranthidungI think you will like this good information about mining pools. No mining pool have https://www.buybitcoinworldwide.com/mining/pools/![](https://ip.bitcointalk.org/?u=https%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FwzGgSr7.png&t=665&c=fS_8Eo-Mrtvizw) From that thread With ~90% of blocks solved by 10 pools, is Bitcoin really decentralized anymore?, I made this one. Data sourceData I used here is total blocks found by Miners/ pools. All timeRaw data +---------------------------------------------------------------------------+ | rank miner blocks_total blocks_miner pblocks | |---------------------------------------------------------------------------| 1. | 1 Unknown 629697 245793 39.03354 | 2. | 2 F2Pool 629697 54080 8.588258 | 3. | 3 AntPool 629697 48856 7.758652 | 4. | 4 BTC Guild 629697 32935 5.230293 | 5. | 5 SlushPool 629697 32883 5.222035 | |---------------------------------------------------------------------------| 6. | 6 BTC.com 629697 29125 4.62524 | 7. | 7 GHash.IO 629697 23083 3.665731 | 8. | 8 BitFury 629697 19513 3.098792 | 9. | 9 BTCC Pool 629697 18027 2.862805 | 10. | 10 ViaBTC 629697 17364 2.757517 | |---------------------------------------------------------------------------| 11. | 11 BTC.TOP 629697 15368 2.440539 | 12. | 12 BW.COM 629697 12417 1.971901 | 13. | 13 Eligius 629697 11425 1.814365 | 14. | 14 BitMinter 629697 6464 1.026525 | 15. | 15 50BTC 629697 6392 1.015091 | |---------------------------------------------------------------------------| 16. | 16 KnCMiner 629697 6290 .9988931 | 17. | 17 BitClub Network 629697 5672 .9007507 | 18. | 18 OzCoin 629697 4845 .7694176 | 19. | 19 EclipseMC 629697 3488 .5539172 | 20. | 20 Bixin 629697 3355 .5327959 | |---------------------------------------------------------------------------| 21. | 21 ASICMiner 629697 3127 .4965881 | 22. | 22 Bitcoin.com 629697 2444 .3881232 | 23. | 23 KanoPool 629697 2428 .3855823 | 24. | 24 Poolin 629697 2135 .339052 | 25. | 25 GBMiners 629697 2093 .3323821 | |---------------------------------------------------------------------------| 26. | 26 DPOOL 629697 1918 .3045909 | 27. | 27 CloudHashing 629697 1824 .2896631 | 28. | 28 Telco 214 629697 1661 .2637776 | 29. | 29 21 Inc. 629697 1508 .2394803 | 30. | 30 Polmine 629697 1273 .2021607 | |---------------------------------------------------------------------------| 31. | 31 Cointerra 629697 870 .1381617 | 32. | 32 MegaBigPower 629697 816 .1295861 | 33. | 33 OKEX 629697 802 .1273628 | 34. | 34 58COIN 629697 745 .1183109 | 35. | 35 1THash&58COIN 629697 710 .1127526 | |---------------------------------------------------------------------------| 36. | 36 digitalBTC 629697 676 .1073532 | 37. | 37 Huobi 629697 643 .1021126 | 38. | 38 HHTT 629697 623 .0989365 | 39. | 39 Bitparking 629697 583 .0925842 | 40. | 40 MaxBTC 629697 449 .0713041 | |---------------------------------------------------------------------------| 41. | 41 BATPOOL 629697 441 .0700337 | 42. | 42 Bitcoin Affiliate Network 629697 438 .0695573 | 43. | 43 CoinLab 629697 346 .0549471 | 44. | 44 TripleMining 629697 333 .0528826 | 45. | 45 GoGreenLight 629697 333 .0528826 | |---------------------------------------------------------------------------| 46. | 46 CANOE 629697 321 .0509769 | 47. | 47 BTC Nuggets 629697 293 .0465303 | 48. | 48 Solo CKPool 629697 243 .03859 | 49. | 49 Yourbtc.net 629697 226 .0358903 | 50. | 50 bytepool.com 629697 202 .0320789 | |---------------------------------------------------------------------------| 51. | 51 ConnectBTC 629697 153 .0242974 | 52. | 52 NovaBlock 629697 133 .0211213 | 53. | 53 BitcoinRussia 629697 127 .0201684 | 54. | 54 xbtc.exx.com&bw.com 629697 116 .0184216 | 55. | 55 digitalX Mintsy 629697 116 .0184216 | |---------------------------------------------------------------------------| 56. | 56 Bitcoin India 629697 114 .0181039 | 57. | 57 NMCbit 629697 105 .0166747 | 58. | 58 CKPool 629697 86 .0136574 | 59. | 59 Mt Red 629697 77 .0122281 | 60. | 60 shawnp0wers 629697 72 .0114341 | |---------------------------------------------------------------------------| 61. | 61 8baochi 629697 51 .0080991 | 62. | 62 ST Mining Corp 629697 48 .0076227 | 63. | 63 EMCD 629697 46 .0073051 | 64. | 64 PHash.IO 629697 44 .0069875 | 65. | 65 simplecoin.us 629697 43 .0068287 | |---------------------------------------------------------------------------| 66. | 66 MiningKings 629697 41 .0065111 | 67. | 67 mmpool 629697 40 .0063523 | 68. | 68 Waterhole 629697 36 .005717 | 69. | 69 Binance 629697 35 .0055582 | 70. | 70 BTCDig 629697 33 .0052406 | |---------------------------------------------------------------------------| 71. | 71 1Hash 629697 30 .0047642 | 72. | 72 Eobot 629697 25 .0039702 | 73. | 73 HAOZHUZHU 629697 25 .0039702 | 74. | 74 transactioncoinmining 629697 24 .0038114 | 75. | 75 175btc 629697 22 .0034937 | |---------------------------------------------------------------------------| 76. | 76 Bitsolo 629697 22 .0034937 | 77. | 77 NiceHash Solo 629697 20 .0031761 | 78. | 78 DCEX 629697 19 .0030173 | 79. | 79 HotPool 629697 17 .0026997 | 80. | 80 A-XBT 629697 16 .0025409 | |---------------------------------------------------------------------------| 81. | 81 BCMonster 629697 15 .0023821 | 82. | 82 Bravo Mining 629697 13 .0020645 | 83. | 83 Haominer 629697 10 .0015881 | 84. | 84 BTCServ 629697 9 .0014293 | 85. | 85 bcpool.io 629697 8 .0012705 | |---------------------------------------------------------------------------| 86. | 86 myBTCcoin Pool 629697 8 .0012705 | 87. | 87 TBDice 629697 4 .0006352 | 88. | 88 Multipool 629697 3 .0004764 | 89. | 89 Patel\'s Mining pool 629697 2 .0003176 | 90. | 90 BTCMP 629697 2 .0003176 | |---------------------------------------------------------------------------| 91. | 91 Nexious 629697 1 .0001588 | 92. | 92 7pool 629697 1 .0001588 | 93. | 93 Tricky\'s BTC Pool 629697 1 .0001588 | 94. | 94 EkanemBTC 629697 1 .0001588 | 95. | 95 HASHPOOL 629697 1 .0001588 | |---------------------------------------------------------------------------| 96. | 96 HashBX 629697 1 .0001588 | 97. | 97 RigPool 629697 1 .0001588 | 98. | 98 UNOMP 629697 1 .0001588 | +---------------------------------------------------------------------------+
For specific years- In 2009: all miners are unknown (32490 blocks found)
- In 2010: all miners are unknown (67920 blocks found)
- From 2011 to May 2020, please take a look at bar charts.
No that's true. But they sit into antpool and btc.com and potentially another pool which did control more than 50% of the network when we had a crash in 2017 and people started turning off their miners. I don't think it lasted long (a month or so maybe) but they still had a large amount of hash power. I've seen viabtc be accused of being part of bitmain too, which, if true means they could have had substantially more than 50% for a while. Not sure what happened to btc.com though.
PS i wouldn't say never, it was 100% by Satoshi at the first few blocks ![Wink](https://bitcointalk.org/Smileys/default/wink.gif) .
|
|
|
|
tranthidung
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 2380
Merit: 4191
Farewell o_e_l_e_o
|
![](https://bitcointalk.org/Themes/custom1/images/post/xx.gif) |
September 19, 2020, 03:45:21 AM |
|
Bitmain is the owner of antpool, antpool has been the largest bitcoin mining pool at one time before, but they have never had more than 50% mining hashrate capacity before. You can check the the link below posted by tranthidung
Your data interpretation is not correct. My analysis is for total number and corresponding percent of blocks found by different pools in specific years or all time. Total block found in a whole year, 2017 ie. does not reflect how low or high one company, pool controls total hashrates on the Bitcoin network. It is a very different data. In the other words, pool with dominant hashrates find most of blocks in the period its hashrate is dominant on the network. Sure it is not a year timeframe. Definitely not if you are mentioning about dominant hashrate about 50%. ![Cheesy](https://bitcointalk.org/Smileys/default/cheesy.gif) But if you simply and naively rely on total blocks and percent of blocks found by one pool to get very raw overview on potential hashrate of that pool, you have to look into very narrow timeframe, such as 1-day, 1-week, or 1-month. I remembered such FUDs back in 2017 or 2018, so when I have time I will come back with data for those 2 years and see what I can find from dataset.
|
|
|
|
Cointikka
|
![](https://bitcointalk.org/Themes/custom1/images/post/xx.gif) |
September 19, 2020, 06:37:18 AM |
|
This is why forums are way better than blogs when it comes to learning and getting accurate information. On forums, users can interact with each other and whenever someone posts a wrong information you will see other members who will come and correct it.
Do not trust or believe everything you read online especially on social media platforms and make sure to browse more than one source when looking for answers to your questions.
In my opinion both are helpful. An example why both are helpful: A blog provides information about new technology to a user and forums help them in clearing the doubts. Information keeps on flowing without any issue. Hence both are needed for the information cycles to run smoothly.
|
|
|
|
witcher_sense
Legendary
Online
Activity: 2422
Merit: 4393
🔐BitcoinMessage.Tools🔑
|
![](https://bitcointalk.org/Themes/custom1/images/post/xx.gif) |
September 19, 2020, 06:57:04 AM |
|
If your goal is to consume as much fake news and misconceptions regarding cryptocurrency in general and bitcoin in particular, you should definitely read every article publushed by Jake Frankenfield, "an associate editor for Investopedia, primarily covering tech". Look, what this guy has written about proof-of-stake: ![](https://ip.bitcointalk.org/?u=https%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FtaFy0Zl.jpg&t=665&c=T9VLOiUPFtDSzA) What Is Proof of Stake (PoS)?
Proof of Stake (PoS) concept states that a person can mine or validate block transactions according to how many coins he or she holds. This means that the more Bitcoin or altcoin owned by a miner, the more mining power he or she has.
With Proof of Stake (POS), Bitcoin miners can mine or validate block transactions based on the amount of Bitcoin a miner holds.
https://www.investopedia.com/terms/p/proof-stake-pos.asp
|
|
|
|
o_e_l_e_o
In memoriam
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 2268
Merit: 18697
|
![](https://bitcointalk.org/Themes/custom1/images/post/xx.gif) |
September 19, 2020, 07:16:18 AM |
|
There have been times in the past where a single mining pool held more than 51% of the hash power. In 2014 Ghash.io controlled over 51% of the hash power, before voluntarily committing to reducing their share.
A couple of points about this, though. In July 2014, 51% of the hashrate was around just 0.06 exahash. 51% of the hashrate today would be around 75 exahash, so over one thousand times more. Further, a mining pool does not have complete control over every miner in that pool. In the event that a mining pool with 51% of the hash power suddenly became malicious, it would be in the best interests of all honest miners to switch to a non-malicious pool.
Although there has never been a successful 51% attack against bitcoin, there have been against pretty much all of its forks. BCash, BSV, and Bitcoin Gold have all been successfully 51% attacked.
|
|
|
|
Pmalek
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 2870
Merit: 7430
Playgram - The Telegram Casino
|
![](https://bitcointalk.org/Themes/custom1/images/post/xx.gif) |
September 19, 2020, 07:22:23 AM |
|
I think he mentions Bitcoin for SEO reasons. He mentions the term 30 times throughout the article so I wouldn't bother that much. Bitcoin is the most popular or the most "common" blockchain available, so he is partly right about that, but tells the story in a very clumsy way. A 50% attack is possible in theory, it has never been successfully carried out, but the possibility is there.
I find the information this "author" has posted regarding Bitcoin's PoS algorithm much more worrying and misinforming than the article in OP.
|
|
|
|
▄▄███████▄▄███████ ▄███████████████▄▄▄▄▄ ▄████████████████████▀░ ▄█████████████████████▄░ ▄█████████▀▀████████████▄ ██████████████▀▀█████████ █████████████████████████ ██████████████▄▄█████████ ▀█████████▄▄████████████▀ ▀█████████████████████▀░ ▀████████████████████▄░ ▀███████████████▀▀▀▀▀ ▀▀███████▀▀███████ | ▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄ Playgram.io ▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀ | ▄▄▄░░ ▀▄ █ █ █ █ █ █ █ ▄▀ ▀▀▀░░
| │ | ▄▄▄███████▄▄▄ ▄▄███████████████▄▄ ▄███████████████████▄ ▄██████████████▀▀█████▄ ▄██████████▀▀███▄██▐████▄ ██████▀▀████▄▄▀▀█████████ ████▄▄███▄██▀█████▐██████ ██████████▀██████████████ ▀███████▌▐██▄████▐██████▀ ▀███████▄▄███▄████████▀ ▀███████████████████▀ ▀▀███████████████▀▀ ▀▀▀███████▀▀▀ | | │ | ██████▄▄███████▄▄████████ ███▄███████████████▄░░▀█▀ ███████████░█████████░░█ ░█████▀██▄▄░▄▄██▀█████░█ █████▄░▄███▄███▄░▄██████ ████████████████████████ ████████████████████████ ██░▄▄▄░██░▄▄▄░██░▄▄▄░███ ██░░░█░██░░░█░██░░░█░████ ██░░█░░██░░█░░██░░█░░████ ██▄▄▄▄▄██▄▄▄▄▄██▄▄▄▄▄████ ███████████████████████ ███████████████████████ | | │ | ► | |
|
|
|
Charles-Tim (OP)
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1652
Merit: 5089
Leading Crypto Sports Betting & Casino Platform
|
![](https://bitcointalk.org/Themes/custom1/images/post/xx.gif) |
September 19, 2020, 09:24:14 AM |
|
Bitmain is the owner of antpool, antpool has been the largest bitcoin mining pool at one time before, but they have never had more than 50% mining hashrate capacity before. You can check the the link below posted by tranthidung
Your data interpretation is not correct. My analysis is for total number and corresponding percent of blocks found by different pools in specific years or all time. Total block found in a whole year, 2017 ie. does not reflect how low or high one company, pool controls total hashrates on the Bitcoin network. It is a very different data. In the other words, pool with dominant hashrates find most of blocks in the period its hashrate is dominant on the network. Sure it is not a year timeframe. Definitely not if you are mentioning about dominant hashrate about 50%. ![Cheesy](https://bitcointalk.org/Smileys/default/cheesy.gif) But if you simply and naively rely on total blocks and percent of blocks found by one pool to get very raw overview on potential hashrate of that pool, you have to look into very narrow timeframe, such as 1-day, 1-week, or 1-month. I remembered such FUDs back in 2017 or 2018, so when I have time I will come back with data for those 2 years and see what I can find from dataset. Thank you for the correction. I have deleted it for not to mislead people.
|
..Stake.com.. | | | ▄████████████████████████████████████▄ ██ ▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄ ▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄ ██ ▄████▄ ██ ▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀ ██████████ ▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀ ██ ██████ ██ ██████████ ██ ██ ██████████ ██ ▀██▀ ██ ██ ██ ██████ ██ ██ ██ ██ ██ ██ ██████ ██ █████ ███ ██████ ██ ████▄ ██ ██ █████ ███ ████ ████ █████ ███ ████████ ██ ████ ████ ██████████ ████ ████ ████▀ ██ ██████████ ▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄ ██████████ ██ ██ ▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀ ██ ▀█████████▀ ▄████████████▄ ▀█████████▀ ▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄███ ██ ██ ███▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄ ██████████████████████████████████████████ | | | | | | ▄▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▄ █ ▄▀▄ █▀▀█▀▄▄ █ █▀█ █ ▐ ▐▌ █ ▄██▄ █ ▌ █ █ ▄██████▄ █ ▌ ▐▌ █ ██████████ █ ▐ █ █ ▐██████████▌ █ ▐ ▐▌ █ ▀▀██████▀▀ █ ▌ █ █ ▄▄▄██▄▄▄ █ ▌▐▌ █ █▐ █ █ █▐▐▌ █ █▐█ ▀▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▀█ | | | | | | ▄▄█████████▄▄ ▄██▀▀▀▀█████▀▀▀▀██▄ ▄█▀ ▐█▌ ▀█▄ ██ ▐█▌ ██ ████▄ ▄█████▄ ▄████ ████████▄███████████▄████████ ███▀ █████████████ ▀███ ██ ███████████ ██ ▀█▄ █████████ ▄█▀ ▀█▄ ▄██▀▀▀▀▀▀▀██▄ ▄▄▄█▀ ▀███████ ███████▀ ▀█████▄ ▄█████▀ ▀▀▀███▄▄▄███▀▀▀ | | | ..PLAY NOW.. |
|
|
|
hugeblack
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 2618
Merit: 3861
|
![](https://bitcointalk.org/Themes/custom1/images/post/xx.gif) |
September 19, 2020, 02:44:09 PM |
|
I respect the articles that are presented on investopedia, but I do not rely on them for technical advice, you should always not trust a specific person, but rather search until you are satisfied with the information, for example the most sites that give you credibility in technical questions are bitcoin.stackexchange.com and this fourm.
The attack by 51% is a purely economic issue and it is difficult to calculate them as constants, but it requires a lot of money to take place in BTC which makes it useless, but some small altcoins that have small hashrate that can be rented from a site for a few BTC are more vulnerable to attacks.
|
|
|
|
CryptocurencyKing
|
![](https://bitcointalk.org/Themes/custom1/images/post/xx.gif) |
September 19, 2020, 09:53:23 PM Merited by Smartvirus (2) |
|
In my opinion both are helpful.
An example why both are helpful:
A blog provides information about new technology to a user and forums help them in clearing the doubts. Information keeps on flowing without any issue. Hence both are needed for the information cycles to run smoothly.
It might interest you to know that, sometimes or most times, having a bad foundation or a faulty ideology about a thing makes you unteachable. You won't know the truth when it's told to you. It's like, your whole time in doing that thing has been a waste. That's why we've got several pentecostal churches today. Breakouts because, they've refused to learn anything knew. Take for example, if you ain't a celestial church member, you'll find it very impossible to go on bare foot for worship but then, they are very much comfortable with it because, that's what they ever known. Same applies to muslims, christians and other religions of the world. So, misconceptions or faulty foundation in cryptocurrency can hinder all you need and is supposed to know.
|
|
|
|
Harlot
|
![](https://bitcointalk.org/Themes/custom1/images/post/xx.gif) |
September 19, 2020, 10:58:27 PM |
|
I don't know if I said this before but Investopedia isn't really a reliable source when it comes to learning terms or other parts of cryptocurrencies. They are great though when it comes to technical and fundamental analysis but when it comes to their crypto related subjects I don't think their writers are fit to create one since it's either outdated or just explained wrongly. Reading the forums and even Reddit posts are more accurate when it comes to the explanation of things.
|
|
|
|
RapTarX
|
![](https://bitcointalk.org/Themes/custom1/images/post/xx.gif) |
September 19, 2020, 11:54:47 PM |
|
Back in the day, it was possible to have 51% attack as there were few people mining bitcoin. Nevertheless, there are a lot of wrong information on the web. There are a lot of articles in Hindi and most of the times, they are never accurate. I don't know if I said this before but Investopedia isn't really a reliable source when it comes to learning terms or other parts of cryptocurrencies.
Personally, I have never seen any issue with investopedia TBH. However, they aren't wrong here; they gotta update the information here.
|
|
|
|
bitsurfer2014
|
![](https://bitcointalk.org/Themes/custom1/images/post/xx.gif) |
September 20, 2020, 12:04:24 AM Last edit: September 21, 2020, 11:53:00 PM by bitsurfer2014 |
|
Its always good to have alternative references to a particular subject and we should never rely on just one source of information because there is a chance we might get wrong information to our disadvantage. Well its evidently clear, Investopedia's articles are mostly based on finance and not on blockchain tech or cryptocurrencies. I guess we could find more useful facts on crypto related sites that could give us more factual, relevant and useful information. GYIF. ![Smiley](https://bitcointalk.org/Smileys/default/smiley.gif)
|
|
|
|
tranthidung
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 2380
Merit: 4191
Farewell o_e_l_e_o
|
![](https://bitcointalk.org/Themes/custom1/images/post/xx.gif) |
September 20, 2020, 03:44:32 AM |
|
I don't know if I said this before but Investopedia isn't really a reliable source when it comes to learning terms or other parts of cryptocurrencies. They are great though when it comes to technical and fundamental analysis but when it comes to their crypto related subjects I don't think their writers are fit to create one since it's either outdated or just explained wrongly. Reading the forums and even Reddit posts are more accurate when it comes to the explanation of things.
Investopedia.com is a popular site and they should do their review or peer-review process better. I doubt that they do have peer-review process before articles are accepted to be published. I am not sure how their editor board works ? Newbies in crypto are similar as infant and their minds are empty to absorb new knowledge, new terms but if they absorb incorrect information at beginnings, it will be a challenge for them to self-correct, eliminate wrong terms and accept correct terms. When a site, a person want to teach the others about something, it should be a correct lecture. Especially important if it comes from a popular site. Wrong information shown by the media ?
|
|
|
|
|