Is this a plausible theory for a network spam attack?

[Carlton Banks]

at that point isn't better for them to just attack the network with 51%? i see no sense here

A 51% attack is a once-off basically. If you do it successfully, the users will simply swap to a different mining algorithm which will render all of the attacker's expensive hardware worthless, so you had better make bank.

Looking for less disruptive, sustainable ways to earn extra is therefore more sensible.

That said, this particular "attack" is pointless for the reasons I mentioned above.

how can users simply swap to a different algorithm when it require an hard fork, and there will be never a consensu for this?

if the 51% of nthe net decide for a 51% and the remaining not, i doubt those 49% are going to agree to lose all their asic sha256 for a new algorithm

The 49% cannot use their SHA256 ASICs in that scenario anyway, because of the 51% using theirs to attack. A 51% attacker won't just fork the chain for 1 block and then retire to their lair, cackling like Dr Evil, they will continue to fork ANY chain using the same hashing algo, meaning all ASICs for that hash algo are written off for all except the attacker.

[1713897242]

1713897242

[1713897242]

1713897242

[1713897242]

1713897242

[1713897242]

1713897242

[1713897242]

1713897242

[Amph]

at that point isn't better for them to just attack the network with 51%? i see no sense here

A 51% attack is a once-off basically. If you do it successfully, the users will simply swap to a different mining algorithm which will render all of the attacker's expensive hardware worthless, so you had better make bank.

Looking for less disruptive, sustainable ways to earn extra is therefore more sensible.

That said, this particular "attack" is pointless for the reasons I mentioned above.

how can users simply swap to a different algorithm when it require an hard fork, and there will be never a consensu for this?

if the 51% of nthe net decide for a 51% and the remaining not, i doubt those 49% are going to agree to lose all their asic sha256 for a new algorithm

The 49% cannot use their SHA256 ASICs in that scenario anyway, because of the 51% using theirs to attack. A 51% attacker won't just fork the chain for 1 block and then retire to their lair, cackling like Dr Evil, they will continue to fork ANY chain using the same hashing algo, meaning all ASICs for that hash algo are written off for all except the attacker.

it make sense, but you can't simply rebuild a peta farm in few days out of thin air, where are all the money to invest in it?

you think the network would remian unoperative for months because they need to build new asic for a new algorithm, which will be in any case susceptible to another 51%(by gpu if not asic) because the total hash would be very low....

at that point isn't better for them to just attack the network with 51%? i see no sense here

A 51% attack is a once-off basically. If you do it successfully, the users will simply swap to a different mining algorithm which will render all of the attacker's expensive hardware worthless, so you had better make bank.

Looking for less disruptive, sustainable ways to earn extra is therefore more sensible.

That said, this particular "attack" is pointless for the reasons I mentioned above.

how can users simply swap to a different algorithm when it require an hard fork, and there will be never a consensu for this?

if the 51% of nthe net decide for a 51% and the remaining not, i doubt those 49% are going to agree to lose all their asic sha256 for a new algorithm

If someone pulls off a successful 51% attack, it means the network is vulnerable to a 51% attack. That means the coins are going to be worthless... for everyone. Of course there will be consensus for a mining algorithm hard fork. Even if there wasn't consensus, there will be a contentious hard fork, and the fork which can be 51% attacked over and over again is going to be worthless.

the coins will not be worthless immediately, you think all the investors that bough at this range, would dump everything in no time and losing their investment?

the reversed tansaction coins would be dumped but it's not a huge loss actually, he can't create a dumping more dangerous than those hackers in the past who stoled hundred of thousand of bitcoin

[Carlton Banks]

at that point isn't better for them to just attack the network with 51%? i see no sense here

A 51% attack is a once-off basically. If you do it successfully, the users will simply swap to a different mining algorithm which will render all of the attacker's expensive hardware worthless, so you had better make bank.

Looking for less disruptive, sustainable ways to earn extra is therefore more sensible.

That said, this particular "attack" is pointless for the reasons I mentioned above.

how can users simply swap to a different algorithm when it require an hard fork, and there will be never a consensu for this?

if the 51% of nthe net decide for a 51% and the remaining not, i doubt those 49% are going to agree to lose all their asic sha256 for a new algorithm

The 49% cannot use their SHA256 ASICs in that scenario anyway, because of the 51% using theirs to attack. A 51% attacker won't just fork the chain for 1 block and then retire to their lair, cackling like Dr Evil, they will continue to fork ANY chain using the same hashing algo, meaning all ASICs for that hash algo are written off for all except the attacker.

it make sense, but you can't simply rebuild a peta farm in few days out of thin air, where are all the money to invest in it?

you think the network would remian unoperative for months because they need to build new asic for a new algorithm, which will be in any case susceptible to another 51%(by gpu if not asic) because the total hash would be very low....

Well, considering you previously believed that keeping SHA256 ASICs once a 51% attacker has made themselves known, I'm not that surprised that you believe that changing the PoW algorithm can only mean rebuilding the entire mining infrastructure with only an instant to do it. 

[Amph]

at that point isn't better for them to just attack the network with 51%? i see no sense here

A 51% attack is a once-off basically. If you do it successfully, the users will simply swap to a different mining algorithm which will render all of the attacker's expensive hardware worthless, so you had better make bank.

Looking for less disruptive, sustainable ways to earn extra is therefore more sensible.

That said, this particular "attack" is pointless for the reasons I mentioned above.

how can users simply swap to a different algorithm when it require an hard fork, and there will be never a consensu for this?

if the 51% of nthe net decide for a 51% and the remaining not, i doubt those 49% are going to agree to lose all their asic sha256 for a new algorithm

The 49% cannot use their SHA256 ASICs in that scenario anyway, because of the 51% using theirs to attack. A 51% attacker won't just fork the chain for 1 block and then retire to their lair, cackling like Dr Evil, they will continue to fork ANY chain using the same hashing algo, meaning all ASICs for that hash algo are written off for all except the attacker.

it make sense, but you can't simply rebuild a peta farm in few days out of thin air, where are all the money to invest in it?

you think the network would remian unoperative for months because they need to build new asic for a new algorithm, which will be in any case susceptible to another 51%(by gpu if not asic) because the total hash would be very low....

Well, considering you previously believed that keeping SHA256 ASICs once a 51% attacker has made themselves known, I'm not that surprised that you believe that changing the PoW algorithm can only mean rebuilding the entire mining infrastructure with only an instant to do it. 

because i believe that those remaining at "49%" with their asic would simply create their own bitcoin fork instead of changing all their equipment for something that might not work anyway for the reason stated above

[naughty1]

1. Be a large miner.
2. Collude with other top miners to attack the network with spam/high fee transactions.
3. Solve blocks and return their own transaction fees.
4. Rake in the legitimate ultra high fee transactions first from users who desperately need confirmations during an attack.
5. Profit???
6. Rinse and repeat.

maybe that's one of the reasons, but I think there is a lot of other reasons. I think, most of the mining Bitcoin miners are ethical, they will not because the immediate profits that do wrong. why do you think they could use unethical tactics to make a profit? I find your thinking is completely wrong

[sportis]

Maybe some people they will disagree with me but delays in the transactions not only make people angry but all of bitcoin users they remember to speak about the debate of blocksize and scalability. We can see that the acceptance of segwit is about 25 percent from last November and nothing shows that something could be changed in the recent future. Therefore, it seems to me that someone or a group of people try to remind all of us, that is, devs miners and normal users that something must be done because network can be overloaded very easy with many problems in everyday circulation of bitcoin.