If states truly would want to get rid of cryptocurrencies

[KingScorpio]

they would easily be able to do that,

it costs just 6 billion to destroy bitcoin with a 51% attack

this is something a commited developed country easily could affort,

however the developed countries promote and support cryptocurrency as cryptocurrencies are benefiting them more than the developing countries, so there is a division in the united nations consil, which prevents state sponsored 51% attacking as being legal.

however if there is an intelligent bussinesman who lends a ton of money to create this hashpower as some form of cyberweapon of a state, this could truly exist.

and what makes it worse this cyber weapon would then be able to eat more and more as each destroyed cryptocurrency would make the attacker even richer, which he can invest to have even more hashpower

regards

[1714824432]

1714824432

[1714824432]

1714824432

[mr-anonymous]

51% attack will not make it richer ... who want buy that coin after the attack is performed ?

He will never get back the investment he put on that attack.

Notice that a simple hard fork by the community will restore everything and allhis efforts will be nulled.

[bob123]

it costs just 6 billion to destryo bitcoin with a 51% attack

Source for the 6 billion ?

Additionally one can not 'destroy' bitcoin by maintaining 51% of the hashrate for a short timespan.

this is something a commited developed country easily could affort,

Or they could just easily ban the posession/usage/trading of cryptocurrencies. Would cost them way less.
Additionally it would need a hardware manufacturer to produce all the ASIC's needed to obtain such a big % of the hashrate.

however if there is an intelligent businesman who lends a ton of money to create this haspower as some form of cyberweapon of a state, this could truly exist.

If this businessman were 'intelligent', he wouldn't 'invest' in tons of mining hardware just to NOT MAKE PROFIT with it.
If you own enough ASICS to have a big % of the total hashrate, you earn WAY MORE when simply mining.

and what makes it worse this cyber weapon would then be able to eat more and more as each destroyed cryptocurrency would make the attacker even richer, which he can invest to have even more hashpower

Thats not how it works.
ASIC's do only work for ONE algorithm. After 'destroying' bitcoin, the whole hardware would be useless and worth almost nothing anymore.
This doesn't make the attacker richer.. an attacker would effectively throw money away.



Please stop posting misleading information. All of your 'facts' are simply wrong and illogical.

[Welsh]

First of all there's several reasons why a majority attack isn't viable, and quite simply isn't worth it. I'm not sure where you've got the 6 billion figure from, and I haven't done any math to support or go against that claim. So, I'll just ignore it for now.

For a 51% attack to be effective a majority attack would have to be maintained constantly to be effective.  Not only that but, several people wanting to protect Bitcoin would likely increase their computing power to protect from a majority attack whether this be 'normal' miners or other countries which support the movement of Bitcoin. For example, there's multiple pools which normal users could band together to reduce the computing power of the malicious attacker. This could be a community driven effort which the majority of worth well users would contribute to one way or another. Whether that's funding or actually providing their computing power.

A 51% attack isn't that effective, and there's probably better ways to go about 'attacking' the Bitcoin network.

[KingScorpio]

it costs just 6 billion to destryo bitcoin with a 51% attack

Source for the 6 billion ?

Additionally one can not 'destroy' bitcoin by maintaining 51% of the hashrate for a short timespan.

this is something a commited developed country easily could affort,

Or they could just easily ban the posession/usage/trading of cryptocurrencies. Would cost them way less.
Additionally it would need a hardware manufacturer to produce all the ASIC's needed to obtain such a big % of the hashrate.

however if there is an intelligent businesman who lends a ton of money to create this haspower as some form of cyberweapon of a state, this could truly exist.

If this businessman were 'intelligent', he wouldn't 'invest' in tons of mining hardware just to NOT MAKE PROFIT with it.
If you own enough ASICS to have a big % of the total hashrate, you earn WAY MORE when simply mining.

and what makes it worse this cyber weapon would then be able to eat more and more as each destroyed cryptocurrency would make the attacker even richer, which he can invest to have even more hashpower

Thats not how it works.
ASIC's do only work for ONE algorithm. After 'destroying' bitcoin, the whole hardware would be useless and worth almost nothing anymore.
This doesn't make the attacker richer.. an attacker would effectively throw money away.



Please stop posting misleading information. All of your 'facts' are simply wrong and illogical.

51% destroyes its trust massively though and all those constand fix and foxes, will make people be pissed of and return to POS systems

[Where2Go]

Interesting premise however this does not address the issue of lack of liquidity and any given Market, a 51% attack would be possible if it was executed over a large period of time but it's also possible that individual networks would become wise to State action, if this is not the case and an individual cryptocurrency fails to be vigilant and protect their Network it's simply a case of needing to hard Fork and reverse the Damage Done

[Traxo]

it costs just 6 billion to destryo bitcoin with a 51% attack

Any amount spent to rent hashrate cannot sustain an attack indefinitely. The network heals and private keys were never destroyed. Cryptocurrency is like an endospore. It can't be destroyed, except maybe by a quantum computer or other break in the cryptography.

[KingScorpio]

it costs just 6 billion to destryo bitcoin with a 51% attack

Any amount spent to rent hashrate cannot sustain an attack indefinitely. The network heals and private keys were never destroyed. Cryptocurrency is like an endospore. It can't be destroyed, except maybe by a quantum computer or other break in the cryptography.

technology progresses rich power and states stay, if they want they can indefinately break bitcoin

[suzanne5223]

I believe the 51%attack will happen to bitcoin because if it want to happen it would have happen before now cause alot of wealthy people you cant imagine are involve in bitcoin. Meanwhile, this one of job of this community and other bitcoin forum to watch over and monitor the bitcoin system.

[KingScorpio]

I believe the 51%attack will happen to bitcoin because if it want to happen it would have happen before now cause alot of wealthy people you cant imagine are involve in bitcoin. Meanwhile, this one of job of this community and other bitcoin forum to watch over and monitor the bitcoin system.

jes i am currently wirting an article about the natural drive for monopolisation which exists in societies observable in board game like "monopoly" but also described in real life by for example karl marx, will also exist within cryptocurrencies and the distribution of hashpower,

we will sooner or later have a huge monster in our midsts that first feeded on the smal coins, and then grew reinvested and then feeded on the big coins, the entire economy then will basically live of the mercy of that association hashpower miners that runs the huge hashpower, similar like the banking cartel, plus it will also be a centre of bitcoin.

i seriously think POW is damn doomed.

[IGreek]

Why would they "get rid of" it? The smart ones will adapt and be ahead of the game (already are). I dont think the notion of it being attacked by political powers will endure. Power is easily swayed by the opinions of the many influence the few. How many times do you see politicians change hardcore opinions based on their "pre-concieved" base?

It will be more of them trying to exercise their power over crypto then kill it. At least, in my opinion, that's what the intelligent ones will do.

[LtMotioN]

Refer to Bitcoin Jesus's video below. He says it quite well.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ncPyMUfNyVM

There is no way that a government gets hold of and installs millions of antminers, powers them and manages to sustain the attack. Think of the logistics behind it. Consider how much electricity they will need, they will probably need to power down their entire country, and after all that they can just do one double spend.

[KingScorpio]

Refer to Bitcoin Jesus's video below. He says it quite well.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ncPyMUfNyVM

There is no way that a government gets hold of and installs millions of antminers, powers them and manages to sustain the attack. Think of the logistics behind it. Consider how much electricity they will need, they will probably need to power down their entire country, and after all that they can just do one double spend.

thats a great post, however there is also non governmental threats, and so called de facto centralisation, if big miner pools associate themselves.

[Samarkand]

...
thats a great post, however there is also non governmental threats, and so called de facto centralisation, if big miner pools associate themselves.

Bitcoin is designed in a way that ensures that the actors that could theoretically
harm the network are heavily incentivized to actually play by the rules.

You claim that a potential problem lies in the possibility that the big mining
pools "associate themselves". Why would the miners collude to harm Bitcoin?
If they seriously damage the trust in Bitcoin they lower the profits for future mining
and also lower the value of their infrastructure and their hardware.
Besides, a successful attack on Bitcoin would seriously damage the trust in
all cryptocurrencies. It´s not like they could just use their miners to mine
another cryptocurrency after an attack on Bitcoin.

These attack scenarios are relevant for small PoW coins (see the recent attacks
on Bitcoin Gold, Monacoin or Verge), but Bitcoin is basically
immune to this particular threat.

[LtMotioN]

Refer to Bitcoin Jesus's video below. He says it quite well.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ncPyMUfNyVM

There is no way that a government gets hold of and installs millions of antminers, powers them and manages to sustain the attack. Think of the logistics behind it. Consider how much electricity they will need, they will probably need to power down their entire country, and after all that they can just do one double spend.

thats a great post, however there is also non governmental threats, and so called de facto centralisation, if big miner pools associate themselves.

Well let's say Antpool wants to be malicous.  How long do you think it'l take for that to get noticed and word to spread? The pool is centralized, but remember it is made up by thousands of individual miners. They will instantly leave the pool and mine elsewhere.

This has happened in the past when one of the major pools were approaching 50% hashrate. Word spread fast and people left the pool. All individual miners will act to protect the network even within one pool. If a pool attempts an attack they will probably fail to get sufficient hashrate, and will lose all their miners before the attack can even really happen.

[Traxo]

If they seriously damage the trust in Bitcoin they lower the profits for future mining
and also lower the value of their infrastructure and their hardware.

One would think this is one of the key reasons that they’re unlikely to short the token and attack, unlike proof-of-stake. However, the miners concoct all sorts of drama (e.g. block size forks) in order to drive the prices down and up like a yoyo, because they profit on the swings in price and they mine multiple tokens and arbitrage between them. Also the lowest cost miners can use price swings to squeeze the marginal miners. The capitalists who own the 12/14nm ASIC foundaries decide who gets the most efficient ASICs first.

The mining cartel doesn't want to outright double-spend or break the protocol yet, because they're still nurturing this 666 system they’re hoisting on us. Yet I am not in some fantasyland dream where I think they're not manipulating on both the down and upside.

Sorry for the depressing thoughts. I like realism, not fantasies.

[datnguyen0912]

Many countries do not know bitcoin. In the next few years they will regret it 

[liamnorthcoins]

they would easily be able to do that,

it costs just 6 billion to destroy bitcoin with a 51% attack

this is something a commited developed country easily could affort,

however the developed countries promote and support cryptocurrency as cryptocurrencies are benefiting them more than the developing countries, so there is a division in the united nations consil, which prevents state sponsored 51% attacking as being legal.

however if there is an intelligent bussinesman who lends a ton of money to create this hashpower as some form of cyberweapon of a state, this could truly exist.

and what makes it worse this cyber weapon would then be able to eat more and more as each destroyed cryptocurrency would make the attacker even richer, which he can invest to have even more hashpower

regards

I dont think the u.s will do this even if it is thrue that they ar3 capable of doing this. Not unless bitcoin poses a threat to their national security. And so far I can see that bitcoin is actually helping boost the economies of those countries so accepted it. It fucoses more on the business and fluidity of transactions in any person's daily activities. It helps makes life or living better and faster and more convenient so i dont see a any reason that the u.s would get rid of crypto.

[ladydark]

they would easily be able to do that,

it costs just 6 billion to destroy bitcoin with a 51% attack

this is something a commited developed country easily could affort,

however the developed countries promote and support cryptocurrency as cryptocurrencies are benefiting them more than the developing countries, so there is a division in the united nations consil, which prevents state sponsored 51% attacking as being legal.

however if there is an intelligent bussinesman who lends a ton of money to create this hashpower as some form of cyberweapon of a state, this could truly exist.

and what makes it worse this cyber weapon would then be able to eat more and more as each destroyed cryptocurrency would make the attacker even richer, which he can invest to have even more hashpower

regards

I don't think that it would be possible to destroy bitcoin by having 51 percent hash power.Even if it's possible,no nation would be coming forward to invest such a huge amount which could not be recovered back.

[zuninholo]

I think countries will not want to do that, because it's potential