Cost of 51% Attack $2,270,712,250.38 (rindex.io)

[DarkStar_]

I think adding backdoor to ASIC, take control over mining poll or release Botnet malware are cheaper/easier solution for the attacker.

AntBleed is already a thing, so it wouldn't surprise me if a government would be able to bribe Bitmain. Assuming large miners did not mitigate AntBleed, a 51% attack would be possible today given that Bitmain can shut off a large amount of miners, and they control a large amount of Bitcoin's hash rate in their pools. BTC.com is around 20% of the network, and AntPool is another 16%.

[1715505414]

1715505414

[1715505414]

1715505414

[1715505414]

1715505414

[1715505414]

1715505414

[BarryCrypto]

Hey, I found another article relating to this, in this one it assumed that the attacker just buys the hashpower from Nice hashable, which would reduce overhead costs massively. With Bitcoin Gold and Verge having some trouble with attackers lately I would love to know if these figures are accurate.

https://www.crypto51.app/

[DarkStar_]

Hey, I found another article relating to this, in this one it assumed that the attacker just buys the hashpower from Nice hashable, which would reduce overhead costs massively. With Bitcoin Gold and Verge having some trouble with attackers lately I would love to know if these figures are accurate.

https://www.crypto51.app/

Looks accurate for me. NiceHash has 84.09 MSol/s that could be rented for Equihash (though it would cost quite a bit of money), and BTG has a total network hashrate right now of just over 23 Msol/s, so someone could rent from Nicehash and become 75% of the BTG network.

Verge uses Scrypt, and has 2.38 TH/s on the Verge network. NiceHash has 20 TH/s that is rentable, so with enough money (renting 20 TH/s for 1 day costs ~15BTC), someone could become 90% of the Verge network.

[BarryCrypto]

Hey, I found another article relating to this, in this one it assumed that the attacker just buys the hashpower from Nice hashable, which would reduce overhead costs massively. With Bitcoin Gold and Verge having some trouble with attackers lately I would love to know if these figures are accurate.

https://www.crypto51.app/

Looks accurate for me. NiceHash has 84.09 MSol/s that could be rented for Equihash (though it would cost quite a bit of money), and BTG has a total network hashrate right now of just over 23 Msol/s, so someone could rent from Nicehash and become 75% of the BTG network.

Verge uses Scrypt, and has 2.38 TH/s on the Verge network. NiceHash has 20 TH/s that is rentable, so with enough money (renting 20 TH/s for 1 day costs ~15BTC), someone could become 90% of the Verge network.

Thanks for the insight, seems very interesting to me. Do you think this might have an effect on POW coins with low hashrate to switch to something like proof of stake or other alternatives to ensure security in their network?

[amishmanish]

The scenario of someone outright buying new miners for hashpower is unlikely. Who would sell and buy that many miners. That can happen if their is some,; to use that popular world, collusion between bitmain and Governments. Such a collusion is always a possibility but I don't think this can be done without someone noticing. And if the word gets out, then a PoW change is the easiest way to render all those ASICs redundant.

The other two scenarios are:

1. Pools coming together to attack
2. Bitmain flipping the kill switch.

Now the first one is unlikely because such a step will only hurt their investments by denting bitcoin's reputation. Bitmain flipping the kill switch and outright attacking the network as a last resort to prop up BCash is the most likely scenario.
This is scary as Roger, CSW and Bitmain have continued their tirade and marketing against bitcoin in mission mode. It is strange that there isn't more discussion on this in the forum. Maybe it is time to take this to the Ivory Tower.

[BarryCrypto]

The scenario of someone outright buying new miners for hashpower is unlikely. Who would sell and buy that many miners. That can happen if their is some,; to use that popular world, collusion between bitmain and Governments. Such a collusion is always a possibility but I don't think this can be done without someone noticing. And if the word gets out, then a PoW change is the easiest way to render all those ASICs redundant.

The other two scenarios are:

1. Pools coming together to attack
2. Bitmain flipping the kill switch.

Now the first one is unlikely because such a step will only hurt their investments by denting bitcoin's reputation. Bitmain flipping the kill switch and outright attacking the network as a last resort to prop up BCash is the most likely scenario.
This is scary as Roger, CSW and Bitmain have continued their tirade and marketing against bitcoin in mission mode. It is strange that there isn't more discussion on this in the forum. Maybe it is time to take this to the Ivory Tower.

Hey, I found another article relating to this, in this one it assumed that the attacker just buys the hashpower from Nice hashable reducing costs massively. It wouldn't work for POW coins with massive hashpower such as BTC but it would work for smaller coins.

https://www.crypto51.app/

[ranochigo]

Just wondering , how come robustness index of ether come greater than BTC when there hash rate is less than BTC?

Ethereum uses a completely different algorithm as compared to Bitcoin. Ethereum's algorithm was pretty much more resistant (not anymore lol) to ASICs as compared to Bitcoin. Everyone can mine Ethereum with profit. Obviously, it has changed now but the technology appears to not be as mature and the cost of the ASICs is pretty high.

For somebody coming outside of the network need to bring  102% of hashrate.
If network has 100 machine/miners, then outsider need to bring 102 machine/miners so that more than 51%  (102/202) share in network can be gained to execute the attack.

That is, of course if they want the attack to last for an extended period of time.

[Rath_]

2. Bitmain flipping the kill switch.

Now the first one is unlikely because such a step will only hurt their investments by denting bitcoin's reputation. Bitmain flipping the kill switch and outright attacking the network as a last resort to prop up BCash is the most likely scenario.

What do you mean by a "kill switch"?

Do you think that Bitmain has some kind of backdoor in their ASICs which would allow them to seriously damage the equipment? Also, Bitmain controls a lot of hashpower, they could slow down the whole network if they turned off their ASICs right after the difficulty adjustment.

[DarkStar_]

2. Bitmain flipping the kill switch.

Now the first one is unlikely because such a step will only hurt their investments by denting bitcoin's reputation. Bitmain flipping the kill switch and outright attacking the network as a last resort to prop up BCash is the most likely scenario.

What do you mean by a "kill switch"?

Do you think that Bitmain has some kind of backdoor in their ASICs which would allow them to seriously damage the equipment? Also, Bitmain controls a lot of hashpower, they could slow down the whole network if they turned off their ASICs right after the difficulty adjustment.

I don't think that Bitmain has a backdoor, I know they do. While it doesn't damage equipment, it does prevent them from mining. This backdoor is in almost all S9s (probably only the first few batches were safe). While you can mitigate it with a hosts file change, I doubt many miners know of this. It's called AntBleed.

Thanks for the insight, seems very interesting to me. Do you think this might have an effect on POW coins with low hashrate to switch to something like proof of stake or other alternatives to ensure security in their network?

Perhaps it could, but I don't think it would be worth it to attack. There's an extremely high cost for a rental, just to mine some coins that you plan on destroying the value at. POS has it's own problems.

[Rath_]

I don't think that Bitmain has a backdoor, I know they do. While it doesn't damage equipment, it does prevent them from mining. This backdoor is in almost all S9s (probably only the first few batches were safe). While you can mitigate it with a hosts file change, I doubt many miners know of this. It's called AntBleed.

Thank you for bringing it up. It's been a long time since I read article about AntBleed. Hardly anyone mentions it these days. Now, the question is, when are they going to use it? If they wanted to damage Bitcoin in favor of Bitcoin Cash dominance then it would be disastrous for the whole crypto community. Bitcoin is one of the most popular cryptocurrencies. Imagine how satisfied some people would be if it happened. The media would quickly spread FUD. I am looking forward to seeing some other company trying to compete over with Bitmain.

[ranochigo]

Thank you for bringing it up. It's been a long time since I read article about AntBleed. Hardly anyone mentions it these days. Now, the question is, when are they going to use it? If they wanted to damage Bitcoin in favor of Bitcoin Cash dominance then it would be disastrous for the whole crypto community. Bitcoin is one of the most popular cryptocurrencies. Imagine how satisfied some people would be if it happened. The media would quickly spread FUD. I am looking forward to seeing some other company trying to compete over with Bitmain.

IIRC, the worse thing that can happen is that the miner could've been switched off. They can't be used to attack Bitcoin since they could all be pointed at different pools.

It wouldn't make sense for them to destroy Bitcoin for Bitcoin Cash. They essentially run on the same algorithm. Any attacks on Bitcoin would certainly affect Bitcoin Cash. It creates an impression that Bitmain controls any coin that has SHA256D on it. Bitcoin Gold got 51%'d recently though but it was pretty low cost.

It's a lot more possible for pools to execute a 51% attack than ASIC manufacturers. Pools do not earn all that much from operating one.

[Rath_]

IIRC, the worse thing that can happen is that the miner could've been switched off. They can't be used to attack Bitcoin since they could all be pointed at different pools.

It wouldn't make sense for them to destroy Bitcoin for Bitcoin Cash. They essentially run on the same algorithm. Any attacks on Bitcoin would certainly affect Bitcoin Cash. It creates an impression that Bitmain controls any coin that has SHA256D on it. Bitcoin Gold got 51%'d recently though but it was pretty low cost.

It's a lot more possible for pools to execute a 51% attack than ASIC manufacturers. Pools do not earn all that much from operating one.

Actually, what I meant was that they could slow down the process of solving a block by turning off the miners. Since the difficulty doesn't adjust immediately, it would take it some time for Bitcoin to readjust it (assuming that some people wouldn't fix their ASICs). Bitcoin would be unusable for some time. I was also thinking if it was possible for them to disable fan control and other security measurements which prevent the device from overheating. This could quickly kill the miner.

As you said, it would certainly affect Bitcoin Cash. It is very unlikely that they will try to get rid of the gold mine, but it is unacceptable to see this kind of backdoor.

[ranochigo]

Actually, what I meant was that they could slow down the process of solving a block by turning off the miners. Since the difficulty doesn't adjust immediately, it would take it some time for Bitcoin to readjust it (assuming that some people wouldn't fix their ASICs). Bitcoin would be unusable for some time.'

Eh, that would be the least of our concerns. If 50% of the network turns off, then the block intervals would only increase by 2x which means it would take 10 minutes per block. This wouldn't last all that long; miners could be losing thousands an hour and its unlikely that they are all in the same timezone.

I was also thinking if it was possible for them to disable fan control and other security measurements which prevent the device from overheating. This could quickly kill the miner.

Doubt so. They don't have any motivation to kill the ASICs. They are an ASICs producer and people are going to buy the ASICs from them in the future. They are not going to sabotage themselves by essentially proclaiming to the world that their ASICs are unreliable and no one should buy from them in the future.

[Yaplatu]

The hackers are not going to buy 2 billion hardware to take control of Bitcoin ... But according to the site "51 Crypto" they can control the blockchain (Bitcoin) for 680,000$ per hour :

https://www.crypto51.app

680,000$ is " nothing " ... Taking control just 01:00 would be devastating...

Can you confirm the information of this site?

[ranochigo]

The hackers are not going to buy 2 billion hardware to take control of Bitcoin ... But according to the site "51 Crypto" they can control the blockchain (Bitcoin) for 680,000$ per hour :

https://www.crypto51.app

680,000$ is " nothing " ... Taking control just 01:00 would be devastating...

Can you confirm the information of this site?

Um, using 2 billion dollars of USD. If they want to execute an attack, they would have either a participant with sufficiently high hashrate or someone controlling a pool with that much. Once you get the hardware, electricity costs shouldn't be that huge of a concern.

The website assumes that someone has 51% of the hashrate and is willing to lend them out to the attacker at the rate that NiceHash is offering. Plausible, of course. I doubt the total amount that can't profit from mining but still turn their ASICs would collectively have 51% of the network. 1 minute is nowhere near enough to do anything to Bitcoin. You need at least 20 minutes. Reward isn't big either, unless you're telling me that the person isn't requiring at least 3 confirmations.

[strelko]

Well, depends. If someone comes into the game with a chip that can basically reduce the energycost and increase the speeds majorly they would have a bigger chance of finding the blocks and thus with enough funding they could potentially reach 51%.

Look at the mining pools of the world, currently China are ruling this space and we don't know how close the pools are to each other.

[KingScorpio]

Is this chart correct? It would show how improbable something like that would occur to Bitcoin, even to a government. And yet, if the attack succeeds, it can end up without profiting.

But I found it curious that some other currencies seem to have a relatively acceptable possibility. And like the shitcoin BGold, they are open to such an attack. This shows how risky it is to bet on bad projects or badly made copies. We're not in a casino, be careful where you invest.



Source: http://rindex.io/attack-cost

ethreum is almost 50% more expensive to attack wow

[goodbagen]

how can be that ETH is more expansive to attack??

Strange history.....