The attack is 51%. The Bitcoin killer.

[soulmates]

Every self-respecting crypto enthusiast has heard about the 51% Attack, in which an error can occur in the Bitcoin code and I think you understand how this will end.

And so, the capitalization of Bitcoin at the moment is about $ 700 billion, if the United States in conjunction with other states wants, they will be able to easily attack Bitcoin and stop its existence.

Or do they want to start using this market themselves to extract their own profit and earn money? Maybe they are trying to limit only ordinary citizens, and they have been sitting on the market for a long time?

There are a lot of incomprehensible questions, a topic for reasoning, what do you think?

[1714576605]

1714576605

[1714576605]

1714576605

[1714576605]

1714576605

[1714576605]

1714576605

[1714576605]

1714576605

[1714576605]

1714576605

[franky1]

maybe searching the forum for the thousands of topics on the subject. instead of making yet another one.

its not about fault with bitcoin code. its about a mining pool wanting to undo a block. after they have received goods or service. (undo some transaction) so that they can re-use that transaction value elsewhere

(its a double spend risk. not a break bitcoin code risk. as all network fullnode users have the same moral code. and changing block formations wont change the code. it only changes whats been a confirmed transaction)

the whole idea is
if it costs a block $200k every 10 minutes to be made.
to undo a block
say block 601
the moral mining pool(MMP) and the general network are already working on block 602
immoral pool(ImP) makes a new 601 minus his transactions

            0min   10min   20min   30min   40 min  50 min
MMP      601      602
ImP       601  601

for ImP to overtake MMP, ImP has to have more hashpower then the network.
            0min   10min   20min   30min   40 min  50 min
MMP      601      602      603       604
ImP       601  601  602  603  604

and maintain it
            0min   10min   20min   30min   40 min  50 min
MMP     601      602      603       604
ImP      601  601  602  603  604  605  606

thus at 605 everyone then follows his chain. thus ditching the mmp chain of 601-604
what he doesnt want to do is have the MMP overtaking him and re-establishing the 601 with the transaction
            0min   10min   20min   30min   40 min  50 min
MMP     601      602      603       604
ImP      601  601  602  603  604  605  606

anyway in stepping back to a scenario ImP was not re-overtaken
            0min   10min   20min   30min   40 min  50 min
MMP     601    602      603       604
ImP      601  601  602  603  604  605  606

this scenario now any/all transactions that were on mmp 601-604 are no longer confirmed.
and any transactions on ImP version are confirmed

however this cost ImP in this simple demo $1m of power to overtake with the 605 variant chain block
.
the premiss is.. unless people are going to want to undo a large transaction over $1m, they wont try to do this attack. as its not worth it otherwise

which is why as a more dis-incentive. anyone receiving a transaction will not release goods of $1m for 6 blocks(block cost $1.2m)

meaning if ImP buys something for $1m at block 601 he wont get the goods until 607
and then and only then can he try to break the 601 and start his undo of that transaction

           0min   10min   20min   30min   40 min   50 min   60 min   70 min   80 min
MMP     606      607       608       609      610       611       612       613        614
ImP      601  602  603  604  605  606  607  608  609  610  611  612  613  614  615

now its cost him 14 blocks ~$2.8mill
to undo a transaction of just $1m value

thus. he has lost money.. and would have been better off just being a moral miner

[ranochigo]

This topic has been discussed so rigorously and the conclusion is always that no reasonable state or adversary would spend so much resources on trying to stop something so insignificant. Unless you're looking for any sorts of profits, 51% won't work. You are bound to spend a few billions in both the hardware, facilities, electricity and various other miscellaneous costs for such an insignificant attack. The money could be better used in other areas. You COULD diminish the confidence that people has in Bitcoin but another crypto would simply rise again and the cycle continues. Not to mention that ASICs are not that easy to obtain or operate in bulk.

[soulmates]

This topic has been discussed so rigorously and the conclusion is always that no reasonable state or adversary would spend so much resources on trying to stop something so insignificant. Unless you're looking for any sorts of profits, 51% won't work. You are bound to spend a few billions in both the hardware, facilities, electricity and various other miscellaneous costs for such an insignificant attack. The money could be better used in other areas. You COULD diminish the confidence that people has in Bitcoin but another crypto would simply rise again and the cycle continues. Not to mention that ASICs are not that easy to obtain or operate in bulk.

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

[MusaMohamed]

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

The Hash Power Migration since China crackdown causes a drop of more than 51% of total hash power from the peak. If any corporations, person can collect all those hash power, it would give that entity enough hash power for 51% attack.

It is impossible to collect all those ASICs into one entity. In the past, there are pools from same owners that had more than 51% hash power but they did not do any attack on the network. Because it will cause harm for Bitcoin and for everyone. It is stupid to run 51% attack.

[ranochigo]

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

51% is not unknown and the costs and complexity of executing it is how PoW solves the Byzantine general problem. 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.

[20kevin20]

Bitcoin can't be "stopped from its existence" through a 51% attack. Worst it can do is just temporarily make things confusing, but in the end the Bitcoin code is editable which makes it easy to counterattack. As mentioned earlier, if Bitcoin fails, another coin will rise anyway and so their attempt to destroy cryptocurrencies would be worthless.

Bitcoin can be attacked, but the counterattack may be even worse for the enemies. It's like shooting a soldier who keeps coming back alive, making you literally waste bullets in the end.

[joniboini]

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

Well, before we talk about restoring trust, we should discuss whether it's possible to lose it in the first place. If there is a chance that an attack will happen, I'm pretty sure the community will prepare for the countermeasures. Your panic sell situation has been described and predicted multiple times but Bitcoin is still doing fine. Sure, everyone knows 51% is deadly, but it's not like anyone can pull the trigger and kill the network anytime.

[Robinson66]

If every country opposes Bitcoin and attacks Bitcoin, it may reach 51%, but there is no reason for every country to unite to attack Bitcoin and not merge, because it requires strong financial and computing power. They will only oppose Bitcoin or ban Bitcoin (but no country can completely ban the possession and use of Bitcoin), and they may ban mining or trading. . Individuals cannot attack the total computing power to 51%. So they cannot successfully attack Bitcoin.

[Jating]

Every self-respecting crypto enthusiast has heard about the 51% Attack, in which an error can occur in the Bitcoin code and I think you understand how this will end.

Wrong, it's not about error in bitcoin code, Lol, it's about some entity controlling 51% of bitcoin's hashrate.

And so, the capitalization of Bitcoin at the moment is about $ 700 billion, if the United States in conjunction with other states wants, they will be able to easily attack Bitcoin and stop its existence.

Yes, that is feasible, but what do they get in return? Nothing, there are no incentives and on the contrary, it might cause billions to attack bitcoin.

Or do they want to start using this market themselves to extract their own profit and earn money? Maybe they are trying to limit only ordinary citizens, and they have been sitting on the market for a long time?

There are a lot of incomprehensible questions, a topic for reasoning, what do you think?

Again, there will be no profits in 51% attack, they are just going to waste a lot of their time and money out of nothing. It is not logical.

[Kakmakr]

The real threat come in when 51% of people in this world do not understand what a "51% attack" is and they post misinformation like this on a public forum. Luckily for us, more than 51% of the people in the Bitcoin community know what it is and some of us even experienced a close call, when the GHash.io mining Pool nearly acquired 51% of the hashing power.

We also know shills love to talk about "51% Attack" as if it is a huge threat to Bitcoin, but we just smile at those posts and we go on with our lives, because we know the facts.     (Done that.... got the T-Shirt.... )  

Facts : To sustain a 51% Attack is VERY expensive and definitely not profitable and if governments target 1 Crypto with that, then we just shift to the next Crypto and laugh all the way to the Bank.    (Tax money can only be wasted for a while, before the tax payer and voter starts to riot and not vote for that government)

[Obito]

51% attack doesn't benefit anyone, even if the states who will support, collaborate and execute the attack won't get anything but just satisfaction that they did something plus bitcoin can recover from it even if in theory, it's a devastating attack. Also, with China out of the picture, it will be difficult to coerce every miner to participate in this one because not everyone will yield unless you use force which is going to be making noise and you don't want noise since people get nosy when there's noise.

[soulmates]

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

The Hash Power Migration since China crackdown causes a drop of more than 51% of total hash power from the peak. If any corporations, person can collect all those hash power, it would give that entity enough hash power for 51% attack.

It is impossible to collect all those ASICs into one entity. In the past, there are pools from same owners that had more than 51% hash power but they did not do any attack on the network. Because it will cause harm for Bitcoin and for everyone. It is stupid to run 51% attack.

That is, simply storing 51% of the total amount of Bitcoins on the wallet will not help to make an attack? Do you need exactly 51% of the capacity of bitcoin, computing machines that ensure the operation and security of the network?

The real threat come in when 51% of people in this world do not understand what a "51% attack" is and they post misinformation like this on a public forum. Luckily for us, more than 51% of the people in the Bitcoin community know what it is and some of us even experienced a close call, when the GHash.io mining Pool nearly acquired 51% of the hashing power.

We also know shills love to talk about "51% Attack" as if it is a huge threat to Bitcoin, but we just smile at those posts and we go on with our lives, because we know the facts.     (Done that.... got the T-Shirt.... )  

Facts : To sustain a 51% Attack is VERY expensive and definitely not profitable and if governments target 1 Crypto with that, then we just shift to the next Crypto and laugh all the way to the Bank.    (Tax money can only be wasted for a while, before the tax payer and voter starts to riot and not vote for that government)

The capitalization of Bitcoin is more than 40% of all funds on the market and why do you think that if an attack is made and Bitcoin dies, then other coins will live?

Everyone knows what impact Bitcoin has on the prices of other cryptocurrencies.

[o_e_l_e_o]

That is, simply storing 51% of the total amount of Bitcoins on the wallet will not help to make an attack?

The number of coins you own is irrelevant to a 51% attack. You can attack the network despite not owning any bitcoin.

Do you need exactly 51% of the capacity of bitcoin, computing machines that ensure the operation and security of the network?

No. You need a sustained minimum of 51% of the total hashrate to guarantee that your attack will be successful over a long enough time frame. You can have much more than this, but you could also try to attack the network with much less than this, although your chances of success exponentially decrease.

The capitalization of Bitcoin is more than 40% of all funds on the market and why do you think that if an attack is made and Bitcoin dies, then other coins will live?

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.

[dzonikg28]

This topic has been discussed so rigorously and the conclusion is always that no reasonable state or adversary would spend so much resources on trying to stop something so insignificant. Unless you're looking for any sorts of profits, 51% won't work. You are bound to spend a few billions in both the hardware, facilities, electricity and various other miscellaneous costs for such an insignificant attack. The money could be better used in other areas. You COULD diminish the confidence that people has in Bitcoin but another crypto would simply rise again and the cycle continues. Not to mention that ASICs are not that easy to obtain or operate in bulk.

What would also kick in is what I just call the "Hydra-phenomenon" for now. If you attack Bitcoin and succeed in rewriting a block or two and thereby harm the network or even destroy it, that is not going to be the end of decentralized currencies. So even a state with malicious intent and the will to lose billions of dollars is aware of the fact that firstly, there are already a ton of other networks that must be attacked as well and secondly, if the first attack on Bitcoin is enough to also tear down all other cryptos, a new protocol with security adjustments will definitely appear shortly after. I think Bitcoin is just a genius invention particularly because it is open source and you could tweak all kinds of aspects about it to get it going again even in another version.

[dkbit98]

Every self-respecting crypto enthusiast has heard about the 51% Attack, in which an error can occur in the Bitcoin code and I think you understand how this will end.

51% attack is NOT some error in Bitcoin code and I don't know how you got that idea in the first place 
Taking over mining hashrate for Bitcoin is almost impossible task, some people tried to take over with various forks but they failed, this is most secured computer network in the whole world, and anyone willing to throw away many can try that again and se how it goes.

[MusaMohamed]

That is, simply storing 51% of the total amount of Bitcoins on the wallet will not help to make an attack? Do you need exactly 51% of the capacity of bitcoin, computing machines that ensure the operation and security of the network?

Miners need to own 51% of hash power on the network and maintain it for a while in order to do 51% attack. It is very costly if you have to hire hash power from any source and many full nodes will detect suspicious things. They will switch to other pools and the community will have solutions to stop the attack.

You are wrong because hash power is needed to run attack. Not Bitcoin. Miners need of have ASICs, and they don't need to have Bitcoin to confirm Bitcoin transactions. Same, they don't need to have Bitcoin to do 51% attack on Bitcoin network.

[aoluain]

-snip-

thus. he has lost money.. and would have been better off just being a moral miner

Exactly, if anyone or group of people had the hashpower/computing power to
attack the network it would be far more rewarding to actually help the network
and mine to earn a Bitcoin reward.

As franky1 mentioned this topic has been discussed many many times on the forum.
The question has been asked since 2011

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=52388.20
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=44078.0
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=55394.0

[nelson4lov]

This topic has been discussed so rigorously and the conclusion is always that no reasonable state or adversary would spend so much resources on trying to stop something so insignificant. Unless you're looking for any sorts of profits, 51% won't work. You are bound to spend a few billions in both the hardware, facilities, electricity and various other miscellaneous costs for such an insignificant attack. The money could be better used in other areas. You COULD diminish the confidence that people has in Bitcoin but another crypto would simply rise again and the cycle continues. Not to mention that ASICs are not that easy to obtain or operate in bulk.

Yeah, it would be really pointless to even make an attempt at such a venture. 51% attack topics used to be a thing in the early days of the forum but stopped being one as more and more people got into crypto. I don't see why any organization or country would want to do something like that. Considering how much it would cost to execute such an attack. So much efforts for very little reward.

[soulmates]

That is, simply storing 51% of the total amount of Bitcoins on the wallet will not help to make an attack? Do you need exactly 51% of the capacity of bitcoin, computing machines that ensure the operation and security of the network?

Miners need to own 51% of hash power on the network and maintain it for a while in order to do 51% attack. It is very costly if you have to hire hash power from any source and many full nodes will detect suspicious things. They will switch to other pools and the community will have solutions to stop the attack.

You are wrong because hash power is needed to run attack. Not Bitcoin. Miners need of have ASICs, and they don't need to have Bitcoin to confirm Bitcoin transactions. Same, they don't need to have Bitcoin to do 51% attack on Bitcoin network.

How exactly will the capacity be transferred to other pools? Do they automatically do it or am I misunderstanding something?

The system is completely transparent and decentralized.