Are 51% attacks legal?

[Abiky]

By gaining the majority of a blockchain network's hashrate, an attacker could perform double-spend attacks with ease. This translates to "free money" by effectively "cheating" the system. Double-spent coins can cashed out to Fiat at any exchange that lists them. Some exchanges have gone far as to block or restrict the hacker from cashing out the funds after they detect there has been a 51% attack. Crypto/Blockchain tech is decentralized and outside of the government's jurisdiction, so I'd assume there should be no legal issues by performing a 51% attack. If it's in fact legal, then why centralized exchanges prevent hackers from withdrawing the funds?

Your input will be greatly appreciated. Thanks in advance.

[Ucy]

It's clearly immoral to attack and cheat a system that is  designed to prevent such attack & preserve values of honest participants. There are really many things that are moral and acceptable by honest people but not legalized, so it wouldn't be ok to attack them even if they aren't legal.   And there are many things that are immoral but legal and are still protected by governments.  The important is whether it's Right (Moral) or Wrong (Immoral ) to attack and steal things from people whether the things are legal or not

[ryzaadit]

What do you things? you have more than 5 years of experience in the forum.

51% attack can be used for faked the transaction, and most of the time any kind of service like exchange will be the victim. Off course is ilegal, because what they're doing is related to asset security.

[Jating]

It's obviously frown upon by every crypto enthusiast. You are attacking the network per se for you own good and getting incentives as result. So this alone makes it very illegal as you have said. There is no written rule because we are in a decentralise finance, no central authority. But it doesn't mean it is legal  to do this kind of attacks, in my opinion.

[Silver80]

By gaining the majority of a blockchain network's hashrate, an attacker could perform double-spend attacks with ease. This translates to "free money" by effectively "cheating" the system. Double-spent coins can cashed out to Fiat at any exchange that lists them. Some exchanges have gone far as to block or restrict the hacker from cashing out the funds after they detect there has been a 51% attack. Crypto/Blockchain tech is decentralized and outside of the government's jurisdiction, so I'd assume there should be no legal issues by performing a 51% attack. If it's in fact legal, then why centralized exchanges prevent hackers from withdrawing the funds?

Your input will be greatly appreciated. Thanks in advance.

It is not enough that this argument must be proven and give an example, why do you dare to speak like that?
For some this is just a personal assumption when you read about it in journals and internet media.

[Abiky]

What do you things? you have more than 5 years of experience in the forum.

51% attack can be used for faked the transaction, and most of the time any kind of service like exchange will be the victim. Off course is ilegal, because what they're doing is related to asset security.

I would say 51% attacks are rather "immoral" than "illegal". What happens in crypto land is completely different from what happens in the real world. Governments have no jurisdiction over crypto/Blockchain tech because of its decentralized nature. Things would've been different if Fiat was involved in the process. There's basically no law that would penalize a hacker from double-spending coins from a blockchain network. Even if there was such a law, it would be hard to enforce it because of the reasons mentioned before.

What matters is that projects fight back against 51% attacks. As long as security measures are in place, the Blockchain will live for a long, long time. Just my thoughts

[faithupgrade]

51% attacks are illegal. It happened in few defi exchanges which result to loss of investments in some investors. If a procedure can harm people stop doing that or you will face your self against the law. Just do go and everything will go fine.

[masulum]

None of the attacks carried out to harm individuals or groups are legal. 51% are illegal attacks that harm many parties, both developers and investors. The only attack that can be considered legal is just a bug hunter where hackers really work to find the bug so developer can solve/closes the bugs he finds, the rest are all illegal. I think you already find the answer now

[mu_enrico]

Crypto/Blockchain tech is decentralized and outside of the government's jurisdiction, so I'd assume there should be no legal issues by performing a 51% attack.

Not sure if there's such a thing as "outside of government's jurisdiction" especially if it involves public (many people). Let alone public, my bathroom is not "outside of government's jurisdiction" as there's no "get out of my property" in the country where I live. Perhaps the government would treat double spending attack just like any malicious cyber attack. If it happens on centralized coins, I think the company can be sued. But if it happens on PoW coins, I believe the thief's address can still be traced for further investigation. I don't think miners can be sued for following the protocol though.

[casperBGD]

What do you things? you have more than 5 years of experience in the forum.

51% attack can be used for faked the transaction, and most of the time any kind of service like exchange will be the victim. Off course is ilegal, because what they're doing is related to asset security.

how can be illegal, if the market is not regulated?
it is not moral, not desired, it is used to fake transactions, but if someone can invest money to hack the network, that is a sign that network is not secure enough, but I am not sure that it is illegal, and that is probably the reason why 51% attacks are not prosecuted by law, there is no basic ground to do that

not sure, but yeah, it seems legal but not moral thing to do, and exchanges are helping networks, because double spending would hurt their business

[cryptobrzy]

51% attack is actually hacking but done on the blockchain. It is illegal in the same way hacking of an exchange is illegal or stealing cryptocurrencies from somebody's wallet is illegal. Some people argue that it cannot be illegal since the cryptocurrency market is not regulated, but if that is the case, then any crime committed through the blockchain shouldn't be a crime by definition.
So i do believe that 51% attacks are illegal

[The1Duke]

The fact that something is legal doesn't make it moral and I don't think we should be looking at legislation to solve 51% attacks, considering it would be putting the issue on the hands of a bunch of people that don't understand the problem to begin with.
Instead, we should seek to make these attacks unprofitable to begin with. I very partial to the solution offered here, it's a very interesting read.

[cryptoaddictchie]

For black hat hackers there is no bound by legal or illegal but the 51% attack is clearly a huge blow to such network. No one accept it as is but definitely no restriction to do so. You can compared it to bank robbery, and major sabotage to such defi or crypto project. The kind of activity is illegal since its a theft thing. For sure many will said the same thing.

Regulated or not but the method it do? Of course its 100% illegal.

[Sithara007]

What do you things? you have more than 5 years of experience in the forum.

51% attack can be used for faked the transaction, and most of the time any kind of service like exchange will be the victim. Off course is ilegal, because what they're doing is related to asset security.

No. You are wrong. As per the existing laws, I don't think that a 51% attack is illegal and punishable. It may be immoral, but definitely not illegal. If someone does a 51% attack and reverses the transaction, then you can argue that it is similar to theft. So in the court, you can use this justification to file a lawsuit against the perpetrators. But most of the aspects would fall within the grey zone of the law, and I am not sure whether you will be able to get a favorable judgement. But how to prove that the perpetrator benefitted from it?

[Abiky]

Not sure if there's such a thing as "outside of government's jurisdiction" especially if it involves public (many people). Let alone public, my bathroom is not "outside of government's jurisdiction" as there's no "get out of my property" in the country where I live. Perhaps the government would treat double spending attack just like any malicious cyber attack. If it happens on centralized coins, I think the company can be sued. But if it happens on PoW coins, I believe the thief's address can still be traced for further investigation. I don't think miners can be sued for following the protocol though.

It's debatable. After all, crypto is still in a regulatory gray area. What makes you think governments will be able to enforce the rule of law on a decentralized blockchain network? They'll only be able to require centralized exchanges to comply with the law, but that's it. Hackers can simply go through other means in order to get what they want. I guess the attacker could simply cash out his/her double-spent coins through a decentralized exchange or a P2P trading platform for peace of mind. With no explicit legislation against 51% attacks, the situation will worsen over time.

What's important is that projects take the necessary security measures to prevent further attacks. A stable and reliable blockchain network is sure to bring people's confidence. There are already many solutions to tackle 51% attacks, so it's up to the developers and the community to do the right thing. Just my opinion

[paxmao]

It would depend on the legislation and on the chain. Normally, any attempt to commit fraud, e.g. pretending a transaction has taken place as ordered by the owner of an asset is illegal in most codes around the world. There is no such a thing as a "licence" or "terms" of use of bitcoin or other chains - at least that I know of - so whatever laws are there apply.

[mu_enrico]

What makes you think governments will be able to enforce the rule of law on a decentralized blockchain network?

It's difficult to remain anonymous for so long, so at some point they will catch the attacker. They can force the attacker to hand them private key (if it's a double spending attack), you know threatening them with a lifetime prison, waterboarding, and stuff. Furthermore, they can find major crypto mining facilities and data centres. If they seriously want to take down crypto, they can seize or destroy it (the facilities) with an air strike. Or arrest every single one of developers and waterboard them until they all comply

There are already many solutions to tackle 51% attacks, so it's up to the developers and the community to do the right thing. Just my opinion

Yes, there are, and it's already implemented on centralized exchanges (checkpoint, blocking tx, etc.) and on miner's side, they will orphan double spending attempt.

51% attack shouldn't be a problem on decent blockchain with an active team, since they can "work on it." However, it's a serious problem for cheap coins with small/no active developers.

[MaDeidre]

If the hacker attack is of course 'illegal". If the attack is success, we will be a victim. But Bitcoin has not been supervised by the market. We should pay attention to our privacy. Protect your privacy.

[hugeblack]

The 51% attack is dangerous and generally no one will do it unless they do a lot of accurate calculations and have a lot of luck.

Many platforms conduct investigations and stop large withdrawals from accounts for 6 hours, and some may even do more than that, so it is impossible for a person to succeed in carrying out this attack without verifying the identity.

Also, any mistake may lead to all profits for one of the miners, who may not return that money.

[Abiky]

It's difficult to remain anonymous for so long, so at some point they will catch the attacker. They can force the attacker to hand them private key (if it's a double spending attack), you know threatening them with a lifetime prison, waterboarding, and stuff. Furthermore, they can find major crypto mining facilities and data centres. If they seriously want to take down crypto, they can seize or destroy it (the facilities) with an air strike. Or arrest every single one of developers and waterboard them until they all comply

That is if the attacker exposes his/her identity through a centralized exchange or service. Cashing out crypto to Fiat in-person or through a P2P platform would let the attacker get away with a double-spend attack. It's up to the crypto project's developers to strengthen the Blockchain against further attacks. Some projects are relying on merged-mining for extra security. Others are timestamping their blocks on the main Bitcoin blockchain for complete resiliency against a 51% attack (like Komodo).

It would be "immoral" to attack a blockchain network with the intent of stealing money or preventing others from using the chain. But I wouldn't say it's "illegal" since crypto is decentralized and outside of any government's jurisdiction. In other words, governments cannot enforce the rule of law on a widely-distributed and decentralized system. I'll be interesting to know what will happen in the future once 51% attacks become more common on small blockchain networks. I'm pretty sure centralized exchanges will de-list coins that are deemed "unstable", greatly affecting their market prices. There should be nothing to worry about as long as decentralized alternatives exist. Just my thoughts