The attack is 51%. The Bitcoin killer.

[NeuroticFish]

or am I misunderstanding something?

I suggest you read how mining and pool mining happens, maybe also what it does. (info)
Then I suggest you read a little about 51% attacks and double spending. (more info)

And only afterwards you are good to go with this kind of topics.
It's OK that you don't know everything. Just you "jumped in" and missed the start.


Edit: I've added two links as info. I'm not affiliated with that website but at a first glance it looks pretty informative.

[BrianH]

I don't think that if a 51% attack happens, then the coins in addition to Bitcoin will live, immediately a panic will start in the market and everyone will sell Bitcoin, because no mistakes should occur, and canceling transactions is quite the opposite of what Bitcoin was created for.

Of course, maybe in the future there will be a new coin that will be protected from such manipulations, but it will take at least 5 years to restore trust for people, I think so

If you think governments care about Bitcoin at all, to the extent that they're willing to spend billions on trying to harm the current Bitcoin, then you are wrong. You cannot prevent 51% attack but the opportunity costs that arises from this is immense. If it ever happens, then we roll back to before the attack and change the algorithm. By doing so, the government has effectively wasted billions of dollars for nothing.

51% attack is not a Bitcoin killer because the game theory behind it hasn't failed. The sheer energy required to execute the attack is equivalent to certain smaller countries. The land area required to house the ASICs and the manpower required to set it up would be fairly big as well. Without understanding the difficulty of executing an attack, and the benefits of doing so from the government's PoW, then you won't understand why this isn't a problem.

Agree with some of what you said, but governments absolutely do care about Bitcoin. When you have major enterprises like VISA, Amazon, Twitter, banks, etc. starting to use it and it poses a threat to the central banks fiat currency control, they are starting to take notice. That's why you hear all this noise about stablecoins, because governments see this as a way to destabilize crypto and a direct threat to CBDC - they're missing out.

A few billion to destabilize Bitcoin would absolutely happen, if governments thought it would work. While you couldn't practically change the algorithm, people would switch to a different crypto before it happened, making the effort pointless. Bitcoin is one serpent head among the medusa's head of snakes. They can try to cut off one head, but PoS or something else would just take over.

If every major country banned/bought out cryptos, they could theoretically discourage it, but I think they see the futility in that and are going to try to tax and regulate it somehow. CBDC is one way to do this. CBDCs maintain the surveillance and allow them to monitor users onramp/offramps into the system. Some say Bitcoin was developed by governments so they could even better track us than the private/public banking system we have now.

Too many elites making money off of it and manipulating the masses into buying/selling through influencers like Musk/Bezos/Dorsey pushing the herd of sheeple in the direction they want them to go, just like they do with stocks.

[OgNasty]

I don't think a successful 51% attack would kill Bitcoin at this point nor do I think anyone capable would be willing to attempt it.  It would take a great deal of equipment and money to pull off such a thing.  I do like the idea of governments with massive amounts of hashrate closely monitoring chains for any sort of forking while they wait for a massive transaction to receive confirmations.  Makes me think of the new Loki show and divergent timelines being managed by the timekeepers...

[dzonikg28]

I don't think a successful 51% attack would kill Bitcoin at this point nor do I think anyone capable would be willing to attempt it.  It would take a great deal of equipment and money to pull off such a thing.  I do like the idea of governments with massive amounts of hashrate closely monitoring chains for any sort of forking while they wait for a massive transaction to receive confirmations.  Makes me think of the new Loki show and divergent timelines being managed by the timekeepers...

And if a government tried to attack Bitcoin, wouldn't it be extremely likely that they will be exposed? How could you pull off such a massive operation, whether it be hardware orders or electricity going through the roof at a specific geolocation, or anyone else involved in the operation saying a single word, the government/actor trying it would almost certainly be exposed.

Is there any way to roughly identify the geolocation of the hashrate production through means other than whistleblowing or obvious behavior like huge hardware orders?

[hd49728]

And if a government tried to attack Bitcoin, wouldn't it be extremely likely that they will be exposed? How could you pull off such a massive operation, whether it be hardware orders or electricity going through the roof at a specific geolocation, or anyone else involved in the operation saying a single word, the government/actor trying it would almost certainly be exposed.

They can succeed but in a short period only. The Bitcoin community will detect their attacks and react quickly to stop governmental attacks.

Is there any way to roughly identify the geolocation of the hashrate production through means other than whistleblowing or obvious behavior like huge hardware orders?

Geolocations don't mean they are identities of ownership. In same geolocations, you can find different mining companies and their hash rates belong to different owners.

Full nodes can detect IP address as I know. I read some documents that in order to have better privacy for your bitcoin transactions, you should set up your Bitcoin full nodes and broadcast your transactions from your full nodes.

[NeuroticFish]

I don't think a successful 51% attack would kill Bitcoin at this point nor do I think anyone capable would be willing to attempt it.

While - at least on paper - 51% is not impossible, if that would happen it would be a blow for Bitcoin's credibility and the way of handling it could keep it alive ... or not (i.e. indirectly killing it). But it's a way too hypothetical situation and imho OP's question/problem was caused by lack of knowledge (and hopefully that was handled too).

[o_e_l_e_o]

if that would happen it would be a blow for Bitcoin's credibility and the way of handling it could keep it alive ... or not (i.e. indirectly killing it).

I agree with OgNasty in that I think bitcoin would probably survive a short and specific 51% attack. By that I mean a 51% attack which double spends a handful of specific transactions, as opposed to a prolonged and sustained attack just mining empty blocks to censor the entire network, or something similar.

There are too many people involved in bitcoin who either don't care or don't understand the importance of a 51% attack, blocks being orphaned, or transactions being reversed or censored. Look at some of the "top" altcoins. Ethereum - not a classic 51% attack but effectively the same result (majority of hash rate reversed some transactions), creating Ethereum Classic in the process, which itself has been 51% attacked several times. XRP, USDT, BNB - completely centralized, can have transactions reversed or censored at any time by their owners. BCash - successfully 51% attacked. And yet all these coins continue to have volumes of billions of dollars and attract new users.

Provided that the 51% attack was short lived, and bitcoin continued to function normally afterwards, then there might be a hit to the price, but I don't think it would be the end of bitcoin.

[NeuroticFish]

By that I mean a 51% attack which double spends a handful of specific transactions, as opposed to a prolonged and sustained attack just mining empty blocks to censor the entire network, or something similar.

That's what I also meant, although indeed a state could do huge damage if it would manage to pull a sustained attack like you mentioned.

And yet all these coins continue to have volumes of billions of dollars and attract new users.

Ethereum had quite a blow back then. And the rest of the coins you've mentioned are imho speculation coins, so the comparison with Bitcoin may not be correct/good.

Provided that the 51% attack was short lived, and bitcoin continued to function normally afterwards, then there might be a hit to the price, but I don't think it would be the end of bitcoin.

I hope you're right. Or, even better, I hope that we'll never find out.

[BlackHatCoiner]

Suffice it to understand what you're attacking. The revolution set sail; you can't stop it, just like you can't kill an idea.

Seriously, think it. Do you really believe that after this revolutionary creation, people will simply forget it? That this innovative technology will be gone just because the government says so? That we'll let slip the PoW mechanism combined with a chain of blocks containing immutably information?

By attacking Bitcoin, you actually attack your own wealth. Masochism...

There are maybe two or three which I could see surviving, albeit after taking an enormous hit to their price. But if bitcoin dies, then the majority of the market dies with it.

Which ones do you have in mind?

Ethereum - not a classic 51% attack but effectively the same result (majority of hash rate reversed some transactions), creating Ethereum Classic in the process

Isn't Ethereum fine? I've read that ETC was 51%-ly attacked, but that was long after ETH was hard forked. Ethereum Classic was made due to a hack of a third party project.

[o_e_l_e_o]

Do you really believe that after this revolutionary creation, people will simply forget it? That this innovative technology will be gone just because the government says so? That we'll let slip the PoW mechanism combined with a chain of blocks containing immutably information?

As much as I think almost all altcoins are either trash or scams, bitcoin is not the only possible incarnation of a decentralized peer to peer currency. The idea might never die, but that does not mean that bitcoin is invulnerable to attack.

By attacking Bitcoin, you actually attack your own wealth. Masochism...

There is no requirement to own bitcoin to attack it. A government which sees it as a threat to their fiat monetary system could be attempting to preserve their wealth by attacking bitcoin.

Which ones do you have in mind?

No idea. I don't really follow altcoins very much. The only altcoin I hold is Monero, for obvious reasons given my feelings regarding privacy.

Ethereum Classic was made due to a hack of a third party project.

Ethereum Classic was made because a majority of Ethereum developers decided they wanted to reverse some transactions which had taken place on the Ethereum network, not unlike a 51% attack. Those who decided that developers shouldn't be allowed to reverse transactions they don't like forked the network to create Ethereum Classic.

[BlackHatCoiner]

As much as I think almost all altcoins are either trash or scams, bitcoin is not the only possible incarnation of a decentralized peer to peer currency. The idea might never die, but that does not mean that bitcoin is invulnerable to attack.

But, Bitcoin, after all, is an idea. The fact that someone may catch up and gain the majority of the votes doesn't mean that he ruins the system. It's an idea which transforms human's greed to common good, which discourages you from attacking it, but rather helping it so you can earn the most.

There's harmony in this consensus and the only ones who can destroy it are the ones who make this beautiful melody.

There is no requirement to own bitcoin to attack it. A government which sees it as a threat to their fiat monetary system could be attempting to preserve their wealth by attacking bitcoin.

You may need no Bitcoins, but you need wealth. You can't plan to spend billions of dollars worth of ASICs and electricity and retain their work until further notice (?), without damaging your own wealth. Besides, what could they do on a PoS crypto? Buy half of its units? They can't attack everything and that makes the 51% attack of Bitcoin meaningless.

No idea. I don't really follow altcoins very much. The only altcoin I hold is Monero, for obvious reasons given my feelings regarding privacy.

There are greater achievements in terms of technology than Bitcoin. Sure thing, it was created in 2009 which has its downsides. Phenomenonically, it'll always be the #1, but in terms of privacy (e.g.), it can't be compared with Monero (e.g. again).

In my opinion, without Bitcoin the whole industry would become chaotic.

[o_e_l_e_o]

The fact that someone may catch up and gain the majority of the votes doesn't mean that he ruins the system.

If by "votes" we are talking about hash power, then that's exactly what it means. If someone consistently controls 51% of the hash power, they become a centralized third party which can censor any and all transactions they do not like. At that point bitcoin is no longer trustless, decentralized, or censorship resistant. That's incredibly unlikely, yes, but never impossible.

The idea of bitcoin might survive such an attack, but bitcoin itself would only survive with a hard fork to brick the attacker's (and everyone else's) ASICs, or something similar.

[stompix]

You may need no Bitcoins, but you need wealth. You can't plan to spend billions of dollars worth of ASICs and electricity and retain their work until further notice (?), without damaging your own wealth. Besides, what could they do on a PoS crypto? Buy half of its units? They can't attack everything and that makes the 51% attack of Bitcoin meaningless.

People sometimes overestimate the cost for this, they take new gear at resale value, they think in power at residential tariffs and so on..

To launch a 51% you would need roughly 1 million s19pro, that would be 7-8 billion $.
But if I would do that I wouldn't go for that gear, I would grab s9s that sell for around 250$, and instead of paying 8k for 110th/s I would get away with 1500$.  So rather than 8 billion, you're down to 1 and a half. And there is a ton of cheap useless for ROI gear sitting in China with no buyer, you're not going to make a profit with it but you'll definitely get a far better price per TH than with the newest generation. Besides, you don't need it to run for a year, one week and it's enough.

The other thing is energy, the first part is quite amusing, every time when it's about bitcoin, everyone says bitcoin is using only 0.01% of the energy in the world, now when you need to attack it, god that's a lot of energy and nobody can get it!!!! Back to the math, miners can't spend more on energy than the reward, so to match them you will need to spend a max of 45 million a day, but you're the government so no taxes, it will get way cheaper. If we go by 10cents/kwh it will still only cost 20 millions to power 6 million s9 a day.

Now, let's assume that indeed Bitcoin is threatening the US dollar, and the US who spends 13 billion on a Ford-class carrier won't be able to pull that off?
But nobody is interested to do so, why do it?  It means people in your own country losing wealth, it means stopping an activity and dealing with people that once had a job and now are on the unemployment payroll, why? Because it will replace the dollar and it will do that and that? Common...

Seriously, think it. Do you really believe that after this revolutionary creation, people will simply forget it? That this innovative technology will be gone just because the government says so?

Once the value is gone so is the hype. The idea for which Bitcoin was created get's more tainted every day, look at the ecosystem now, it's all about centralized exchanges and wallets, prices and trading, and holding till you make x in profit, once that is gone you will never be able to find the same userbase again, the ones that are reticent to the idea will never embrace it after such a failure, and from their point of view is quite understandable.

[ropyu1978]

it's true that 51% of bitcoin killers attack, want to destroy and bring down bitcoin, but all of their attacks to destroy bitcoin, it can be said to be unsuccessful, they failed miserably, haters have always instigated bitcoin, everything they do, but bitcoin has a way separately to overcome all the attacks that come..

[BlackHatCoiner]

Now, let's assume that indeed Bitcoin is threatening the US dollar, and the US who spends 13 billion on a Ford-class carrier won't be able to pull that off?

I'm just saying that there's no reason to do it. Spend more than a billion dollars to attack something that works under a general agreement. You may indeed achieve to destroy the Bitcoin network, but you won't get rid of your worries. Proof of stake cryptocurrencies will then arise. What will they then do? Buy half of the units? There will be other permissionless and borderless cryptocurrencies they'll be afraid of; beating Bitcoin doesn't beat this liberated attitude.

Once the value is gone so is the hype. The idea for which Bitcoin was created get's more tainted every day, look at the ecosystem now, it's all about centralized exchanges and wallets, prices and trading, and holding till you make x in profit

Yes, this is how the world works, I know. The majority of the people don't want to be responsible for their wealth. Hence, centralization occurs.