51% attack now Possible by the Top 3 Mining Pool Operators

[Khaos77]

■²√

[Kakmakr]

There are no need to cover up anything.    Just go back in the history and look what happened when GHash.IO had more than 51% of the hashing power. Did they use that to attack the network? No they did not... Why did they not do that? --> because in the long run they would have lost a lot more than what they would have gained by doing that.

https://www.coindesk.com/ghash-io-never-launch-51-attack

Satoshi designed this whole technology to keep people honest, because it is in their own interest to do that. Now, go away ZEITCOIN shill and follow the sheep to the slaughter.   

[blckhawk]

Even though it's not likely to happen, it is still indeed possible. However, I don't think such attack would be conducted, as early as of now. Even if it is possible, the amount that they would possibly get from another bull run would be larger, and the possibilites are endless, rather than one-time profit that won't last that long.

However, I became quote interested on the link you posted. Collaborative proof-of-work seems to be a solution on removing pools which somehow creates a centralized system themselves. If the distribution made by mining pools nowadays could be integrated on the blockchain, then it could remove monopolies in mining and possibly increase the control to the people rather than smaller groups of individuals that control these pools.

[odolvlobo]

Keep in mind that colluding in a 51% attack is not in a pool's best interest. If the pool is caught (or even suspected of) trying a 51% attack, members will leave the pool and it will fade into obscurity. Take a look at what happened to ghash.io just because it went over 50%!

[pakhitheboss]

Why even some of us were bothered in responding to this Bitcoin hater? We are only encouraging him to again create a nonsense post like this in the future.

Again and again, we are all having the same conversation. It is his belief that it will happen someday, so let him believe it. No one can change his thinking. Therefore we should stop responding to him.

[mk4]

Why even some of us were bothered in responding to this Bitcoin hater? We are only encouraging him to again create a nonsense post like this in the future.

Because there are other less-educated readers here on Bitcointalk, that could potentially be swayed to the other way by bad criticisms like this one especially if no one makes a decent counter-argument. Making counter arguments is the least we can do because threads like this aren't going to be deleted by admins(which is a good thing).

[Linkkoin]

Legally operating mining pool operators would not risk their reputation with a 51% attack. It would be a kiss of death to the company, risk of imprisonment for its owners and possibly a deadly blow to the cryptocurrency.

In the case of bitcoin - it would mean REAL nuclear winter for cryptocurrencies, including wiping out 90+% of all cryptos we have.

[puertorikosena]

I think that the owners of mining pools are smart people and they understand that 51% attack is not advisable. This attack will allow them to earn a little single-pay. It’s much better to keep bitcoin network running and make money in the long run.

[alyssa85]

There are no need to cover up anything.    Just go back in the history and look what happened when GHash.IO had more than 51% of the hashing power. Did they use that to attack the network? No they did not... Why did they not do that? --> because in the long run they would have lost a lot more than what they would have gained by doing that.

https://www.coindesk.com/ghash-io-never-launch-51-attack

Satoshi designed this whole technology to keep people honest, because it is in their own interest to do that. Now, go away ZEITCOIN shill and follow the sheep to the slaughter.   

This. In the early days when bitcoin and alts were worth nothing, some anarchists thought it was fun to attempt 51% attacks to kill an alt.

But now bitcoin is worth over $8000, there is no incentive to kill it. Especially not if they have spent a lot of money on servers and mining rigs.

[franky1]

firstly
51% attack cannot change the rules of bitcoin. they cannot make more or less coins circulate they cant steal funds from people and put it into their own pockets.

all they can do is choose which transactions to include or exclude.
basically 51% is only a 'prolonged empty block threat'

secondly. although a pool may show as one entity, within the tag of a pool name is actually several facilities managed by several people.
there are some facilities that already prefer empty blocks and others dont, all while all being tagged as the same pool
there are some facilities that already prefer highest fee transactions and others dont, all while all being tagged as the same pool
there are some facilities that prefer segwit blocks(=>1mb) and others do legacy(=<1mb), all while tagged as the same pool
thus showing thre is not ven an agreement between the facilities of the same 'pool'

so even if 3 pools combine as over 50% its not just 3 men deciding. its actually more

and worse case. people can shift their asics to another pools as quickly as just changing an ip address in their asics configuration page

[logfiles]

Centralization has occurred. Decentralization is dead for bitcoin.

So now only 3 people secure bitcoin.

Only 3 people?
What a reckless and stupid statement?

According to your logic, 3 mining pools = 3 individuals.  
You forget that a pool consists of different miners who can choose not to be part of the said evil attack.
Are they gonna force all the miners to carry out the attack? 

[gentlemand]

This is very quaint. Bless OP's heart and all his little tootsies too. I want to grab a handful of cheek and give it a wiggle while ruffling his pudding bowl hair.

Pools have their power until the thousands of miners who use them decide they don't any more and that takes a few seconds to address. In another few years these pools will be long forgotten just like the previous ones.

[franky1]

i just chcked out the % of the pools that OP linked

https://www.blockchain.com/en/pools

and 22% is 'unknown'
basically pools that havnt even tagged their address to a known business/facility/brand

take just the recent block mined by 'unknown sources' (emphasis different pools)
3Bmb9Jig8A5kHdDSxvDZ6eryj3AXd3swuJ has been using this address since september and just looking at the recent fortnight only made  26 blocks out of 2016
thats not even 2%

another facility using address
3DPNFXGoe8QGiEXEApQ3QtHb8wM15VCQU3 only done 18 blocks since september... 18 out of ~5000 blocks. thats not even 0.3%

another facility using address
1MvYASoHjqynMaMnP7SBmenyEWiLsTqoU6  has been using this address since october and just looking at the recent fortnight only made  74 blocks out of 2016
thats not even 4%

but because these different facilities have not identified themselves they all just tagged as 'unknown' so silly people assume its one pool named 'unknown'

hint/emphasis 'unknown' is not a brand name

[nreal]

This of course is impossible, Firstly, the possibility of all three cooperating to attack together is impossible and ultimately they simply have no reason to do so unless they want to hurt their own interests.

[kryptqnick]

Keep in mind that colluding in a 51% attack is not in a pool's best interest. If the pool is caught (or even suspected of) trying a 51% attack, members will leave the pool and it will fade into obscurity. Take a look at what happened to ghash.io just because it went over 50%!

Luckily, this is the thing that makes the current situation safe. Businesses care about profits, and things have not been great for the last couple of years already. So miners are in desperate need of gaining more profit if they are in the business for a while. Trying to make a 51% attack is basically a suicide mission, so it's the opposite of what a company would like to do. I am not a fan of the whole centralized mining kind of situation, though. Because even having it as a possibility (if we really have it now) is a high risk... Relying on influential people behaving in a rational way can betray us.

[konfuzius5278]

Problem is even if we want to spread hashrate, its problem because at this hashrate small pools dont find any block.
So the highjer the hashrate of course the more centralisation.

I hear a mining farm starting be profitable start at owing 20 Mio USD at the beginning. Thats crazy much

[stompix]

https://www.blockchain.com/en/pools

Top 3 mining Pool Operators now have 56% control, so if they collude they can easily 51% attack bitcoin.

Centralization has occurred. Decentralization is dead for bitcoin.

So now only 3 people secure bitcoin.

Oh no, bitcoin is dead again!!!
But more importantly, math is dead! Totally!

I don't know in what reality
Poolin 14,9%
F2Pool 14,3%
Btc.com 13%
Equals 56% and not 42,2%

i just chcked out the % of the pools that OP linked
<>
and 22% is 'unknown'
basically pools that havnt even tagged their address to a known business/facility/brand
hint/emphasis 'unknown' is not a brand name

Franky1, this is one time I don't want to agree with you, even if I know you're right because I simply refuse to believe the OP is that stupid he actually believed unknown is a single mining operation. Although the historical graph is telling otherwise I really want to believe at the time he created the post the numbers were really saying something else.

Only 3 people?
What a reckless and stupid statement?

According to your logic, 3 mining pools = 3 individuals.  
You forget that a pool consists of different miners who can choose not to be part of the said evil attack.
Are they gonna force all the miners to carry out the attack?  

Not even that, even the pool itself is owned most of the time by multiple persons.
And in the btc.com case, there is also a board of directors, there are a lot of people involved, to think of pools like some counterstrike servers run by 12yo is hilarious.

[gmaxwell]

Did they use that to attack the network? No they did not...

Really bad example.  GHash.IO performed a finney attack, claimed they were hacked. https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=327767.0

[Kyraishi]

This is just a stupid statement, no one has enough power/money to be able to perform a 51% attack, and it's killing off the golden goose, which isn't going to be profitable for the companies.

It's 3 mining pools, not 3 companies, and as other people have said, one of the pools is "unknown", which means all pools that haven't been identified are going to be seen as unknown, even though they are obviously not the same pool...

Fake news.

[konfuzius5278]

But whether they do or don't, You are trusting only 3 guys with keeping the bitcoin network safe from 51% attack.

Do you have proof that 3 people have full control over those pools?
1. Stockholder won't allow the pool to perform 51% attack since it's not profitable on long run, except if they desperately need short term profit
2. The engineer could put backdoor which halt pool operation
3. Miners could switch to another pool
4. Those 3 people can't prevent Bitcoin community from switching PoW algorithm

You insinuate that anyone knows that the pools are using a "modified" node where they mine on. Just 3 technican of the 3 or 4 pools need to know....