What are the chances of bitmain controlling more than 51%?

[jackg]

So I'm slightly worried bitmain could potentially have more than 51% of hash power and are hiding it.

They own ant pool and dpool which make up a lot of the mining power along with btc.com and there's an extremely high amount of unknown solves. To an extent where this could be another mining pool or bitmain.

https://www.blockchain.com/pools is the reference I was using to come to this idea...

[1714914726]

1714914726

[squatter]

So I'm slightly worried bitmain could potentially have more than 51% of hash power and are hiding it.

They own ant pool and dpool which make up a lot of the mining power along with btc.com and there's an extremely high amount of unknown solves. To an extent where this could be another mining pool or bitmain.

https://www.blockchain.com/pools is the reference I was using to come to this idea...

If you're right, I'm fairly sure it's not the first time they've accumulated that much hash power. The discussion about Bitmain controlling a majority of the hash rate has been going on for 2-3 years now.

I'm sure many other miners point their rigs at Bitmain's pools. If Bitmain stepped out of line, miners would move elsewhere. And there goes that huge hash rate under their control. Plus, their reputation could implode -- surely not a wise move with an IPO on deck.

Based on these considerations, I'm not too concerned.

[gentlemand]

I'm pretty sure they've had way more than 51% for long periods at times and probably now too. Viabtc is some sort of 'associate' of theirs as well. The only significant proportions that are categorically not theirs are Bitfury, Slushpool and F2pool.

If there was ever a hint of funny stuff all of the power not owned by them would head elsewhere like a shot. I'm sure they own plenty, but it's a big old world out there and the rest of it is invested in BTC's health as is Bitmain.

[pooya87]

They own ant pool and dpool

they own "pools" not hashrate. they have "access" to a lot of hashrate which can possibly be more than 51% but they don't own it. this means they have to act maliciously while convincing the miners to stay on their pool which is not going to happen. miners don't want to see their investment threatened and they will switch to another pool similar to 2014-15 case with GHASH.io which had about 60% of the hashrate on their pool and miners switched because they feared the possible consequences.

[Velkro]

So I'm slightly worried bitmain could potentially have more than 51% of hash power and are hiding it.

It was more possible in past when bitmain didnt have financial problems.
If they hide it and they have it, they doing Bitcoin a favor. They won't using it to crash price because its one way, one time solution.

So to summary this, you don't need to be afraid of that

[Kakmakr]

https://cointelegraph.com/news/new-report-highlights-increasing-decentralization-of-bitcoin-mining  - This report kind of debunk that theory. 

How would Bitmain benefit from a 51% attack? We all know a successful 51% attack would destroy the investor confidence in this technology and also destroy the price. <Whatever coins they have will be worthless in the long-run>

The cost to maintain a 51% attack, would also outweigh it's double spending advantages, before they get caught doing this. This will also ruin their reputation. <not that they are worried about trivial things like that> 

[dothebeats]

There had been rumors for quite a time now, though I don't think they will do such move and potentially destroy everyone's trust on bitcoin and on their company as well. Letting the world know that they control 51% of the whole network's hashing power is a direct blow to their own company as they wouldn't be benefiting much from it anyway. If they really do and they are not thinking straight, then perhaps we wouldn't be around here discussing bitcoin in the first place as we might be disappointed with how everything turned out to be.

But then again they are smart, and wouldn't be doing silly things just to flex.

[r1s2g3]

I agree with pooya that owning pool does not mean owning hashrate.
On the side note if they still try to do it then it will the same story like killing of goose that is laying golden eggs.
Replacing Jihan Wu is also a sign that bitmain is serious on their bitcoin mining business.

[jackg]

https://cointelegraph.com/news/new-report-highlights-increasing-decentralization-of-bitcoin-mining  - This report kind of debunk that theory. 

How would Bitmain benefit from a 51% attack? We all know a successful 51% attack would destroy the investor confidence in this technology and also destroy the price. <Whatever coins they have will be worthless in the long-run>

The cost to maintain a 51% attack, would also outweigh it's double spending advantages, before they get caught doing this. This will also ruin their reputation. <not that they are worried about trivial things like that> 

The link doesn't prove so much though since everyone is quite anonymous around here when mining. Maybe it is indirectly linked to them. Wasn't there also a backdoor in their mining servers at some point also?

[pooya87]

The cost to maintain a 51% attack, would also outweigh it's double spending advantages, before they get caught doing this. This will also ruin their reputation. <not that they are worried about trivial things like that> 

not to mention, illegal. it may not look like it but performing a double spend is a clear act of fraud specially when it is on such a big scale which would be in millions of dollars and because of that it is going to have a lot of legal consequences for the person performing it.

[gentlemand]

not to mention, illegal. it may not look like it but performing a double spend is a clear act of fraud specially when it is on such a big scale which would be in millions of dollars and because of that it is going to have a lot of legal consequences for the person performing it.

There've now been a few double spends, Bitcoin Gold and ETC among them. I haven't heard of any attempts to tackle anyone or anything legally because of it. It may well be a form of fraud but I've never heard a legal opinion on the matter. So far it seems that the exchanges affected just swallowed it.

Bitmain themselves won't have enough raw power to do it. If they did and carried it out I suspect the Chinese government would give them a pat on the back.

[pooya87]

not to mention, illegal. it may not look like it but performing a double spend is a clear act of fraud specially when it is on such a big scale which would be in millions of dollars and because of that it is going to have a lot of legal consequences for the person performing it.

There've now been a few double spends, Bitcoin Gold and ETC among them. I haven't heard of any attempts to tackle anyone or anything legally because of it. It may well be a form of fraud but I've never heard a legal opinion on the matter. So far it seems that the exchanges affected just swallowed it.

Bitmain themselves won't have enough raw power to do it. If they did and carried it out I suspect the Chinese government would give them a pat on the back.

those cases were too small and they were performed anonymously because you really didn't need that much hashing power to pull something like that. here in bitcoin world we are talking about a known company and if they perform a 51% attack it would be easy to detect and prove who did it! and again we are talking about millions of dollars, and that is not something you could sweep under the rug that easily.

[jademaxsuy]

Well stated in https://www.blockchain.com/pools it's a rough estimate and not 100% accurate then that means it can be change anytime. Pooya is right that they own pools not the hashrate but they do have share of the hashrate but it doesn't mean that bitmain owns it (not sure though).

[jackg]

Well stated in https://www.blockchain.com/pools it's a rough estimate and not 100% accurate then that means it can be change anytime. Pooya is right that they own pools not the hashrate but they do have share of the hashrate but it doesn't mean that bitmain owns it (not sure though).

It is an estimate because its based on blocks mined recently.
However, it hasn't changed ver much in the past few days so I think it's quite accurate a luck streak doesn't last that long. And since it's on blocks mined and not actual hash rate for a 51% attack although it's technically both ish then mining more than 51% is still a possibility.

Also you guys are referring to once an attack has happened, there'll still be a first attack which will be quote hard for people new to the space and such...

[Upgrade00]

I have gathered from this thread that the miners still control the consensus even if the company controls the pools. If the company was to at a time attempt a 51% attack, even if it does fail, would it affect the confirmation of transactions on the bitcoin network during that period?

it would be easy to detect and prove who did it! and again we are talking about millions of dollars, and that is not something you could sweep under the rug that easily.

Is there this much gain in pulling such a stunt?

[gentlemand]

Is there this much gain in pulling such a stunt?

No. Which is why it will never happen. There would be no financial gain compared to the fallout. The only thing the attack could gain is double spend the transactions that take place after they take control of the chain. You can't crack addresses. You can't create coins out of thin air. The double spent coins would be worth peanuts anyway as the price would collapse.

The only realistic party who'd do such a thing would be a group devoted entirely to destroying BTC regardless of the cost or difficulty.

[pooya87]

it would be easy to detect and prove who did it! and again we are talking about millions of dollars, and that is not something you could sweep under the rug that easily.

Is there this much gain in pulling such a stunt?

theoretically it has to be because in order to perform a 51% attack you have to spend a lot of money and take a lot of risks. and owning that much hashrate you are normally finding more than half of the blocks and that is more than $3.5 million per day with current price. so to pull it off the profit has to be higher than that at least to be worth the effort.
of course there can be other motivations such as government shenanigans but that is a different conspiracy theory!