Is BTC really safe from being hijacked?

[Harpaggie2001]

Been a HODLer since 2013. Still buying every single day.  Haven't sold a singe sat.  Admittedly, next bull run I'm gonna leverage my BTC or scrape some profits. Nothing makes me happier than dangling it in my friends faces who have been screaming "SELL THAT SHIT WHILE YOU CAN" for 9 years. Now that it might actually threaten the USD, I'm gonna ask what I hope is a stupid question. 

How difficult (expensive, realistic, etc) would it be for the US gubmint to buy up enough mining power to hijack the network, change the rules, and send it all to zero?

Admittedly I don't know much about the technical side.  I buy it because I saw / see the value from a financial perspective.  I understand the basics, but when you'll start talmbout hash rates, I get lost like a goose in tall weeds.

Once someone can explain to me why it should cost the same amount of money to wire funds between 2 banks next door to each other, as it does to mail a fckn brick from Miami to Maine, I might weaken my bullish outlook on BTC. Not to mention they don't process transactions on weekends?  Why? Because the ladies poking the keyboards are "off"?  Okay Flintstones...... Until then, I'm still a buyer baby.

And please, ELI5

[1714946614]

1714946614

[1714946614]

1714946614

[1714946614]

1714946614

[1714946614]

1714946614

[odolvlobo]

How difficult (expensive, realistic, etc) would it be for the US gubmint to buy up enough mining power to hijack the network, change the rules, and send it all to zero?

An S19 Pro costs about $8k and has a hash rate of 110 TH/s. For a 51% attack, at least 200 million TH/s is needed, so about 1.8 million S19s, with a cost of about $15 billion. There is also the cost of the supporting infrastructure, labor and electricity.

As far as your concern about changing the rules -- it is not possible. Changing the rules would simply cause a fork, like BCH, BSV, and BTG, that can be ignored.

The most likely attack would be a denial of service. The government would prevent other miners from adding blocks to the chain and publish empty blocks for as long as needed in order to kill the network. In the end it would be expensive, but it is probably doable if there is sufficient political will behind it.

[LoyceMobile]

How difficult (expensive, realistic, etc) would it be for the US gubmint to buy up enough mining power to hijack the network, change the rules, and send it all to zero?

A 51% attack can't change the rules. All it can do is orphan existing blocks and create new ones.
The rules are enforced by consensus, and won't change until people accept the altered software.

[Asiska02]

How difficult (expensive, realistic, etc) would it be for the US gubmint to buy up enough mining power to hijack the network, change the rules, and send it all to zero?

In bitcoin history, no one has successfully done a 51% attack successfully being it an individual miner or group. Only if one has more than half percentage of the hash-rate the attack can probably be possible. It's not definite that you'll reverse the next block, but it's a matter of time until you attack successfully.
When a miner possesses 51% of the hashrate and having it mine in secret a second chain is close to impossible right now, because 20% of the hashrate is controlled by public companies (which is 100% likely to increase in the near future). This won’t be the only first bankruptcy but will also face lawsuits after lawsuit for this act.

[PrivacyG]

I think it is time for you to switch focus.  From how easy it is for a government to 'hijack' Bitcoin to how difficult it would be for the same government to re-hijack Bitcoin once everybody forks to another algorithm.  I do not know how easy it is to switch to GPU mining, but I assume it would be one of the choices if possible and easy to apply.

Here is the hardest part of the hijacking thing.  Sure, let us say the government has enough resources and time to create the perfect mega mining rig to 'overtake' Bitcoin.  It would take HOURS at most for us to put everything back in place after which all their resources and effort become worthless and useless.

-
Regards,
PrivacyG

[decodx]

How difficult (expensive, realistic, etc) would it be for the US gubmint to buy up enough mining power to hijack the network, change the rules, and send it all to zero?

I don't know much about the technical side either, but I followed a simple calculation based on this website to get a rough estimate.

The current Target Hashrate on the Bitcoin network is 200,000,000.00 TH/s.
The most powerful hardware currently on the market (although not yet available) is BITMAIN AntMiner S19 XP Hyd. with Max. Hashrate of 255 TH/s (specified)
Required Equipment = Target Hashrate / Hardware Hashrate = 200,000,000.00 / 255 ≈ 784,300 Units.
Hardware Cost = 784,300 Units * USD 19,890.00 = USD 15,599,727,000.00
Assuming Electricity Price is USD 0.01 per kWh :
Electricity Cost = 784,300 circuits * 5.30 kWh * USD 0.01 = USD 41,567.90/hour or USD 1M/day

So, according to this rough calculation, to carry out a successful 51% attack on the Bitcoin network with said hardware would cost at least $ 15.6 billion in hardware and at least $ 1 million a day in electricity costs.

[Harpaggie2001]

I think it is time for you to switch focus.  From how easy it is for a government to 'hijack' Bitcoin to how difficult it would be for the same government to re-hijack Bitcoin once everybody forks to another algorithm.  I do not know how easy it is to switch to GPU mining, but I assume it would be one of the choices if possible and easy to apply.

Here is the hardest part of the hijacking thing.  Sure, let us say the government has enough resources and time to create the perfect mega mining rig to 'overtake' Bitcoin.  It would take HOURS at most for us to put everything back in place after which all their resources and effort become worthless and useless.

-
Regards,
PrivacyG

Thanks for the insight!  In regards to your second comment.  Could you elaborate a bit more about what you mean by "would take HOURS at most for us to put everything back in place after which all their resources and effort become worthless and useless."? Are you saying that enough people would see the fuckery taking place and produce an alternate means of securing the network?  Could you elaborate a little more?  And also for the record, explain it like I can barely use an iPhone. 

I know you guys are probably tired of these types of questions, so thanks for bearing with me.  Is there anything that could realistically thwart the protocol?  I don't think "banning it" is plausible at this point.  It kinda seems like that would infringe on our first amendment.  But I guess if we're being brutally honest that too isn't out of the realm.

How difficult (expensive, realistic, etc) would it be for the US gubmint to buy up enough mining power to hijack the network, change the rules, and send it all to zero?

An S19 Pro costs about $8k and has a hash rate of 110 TH/s. For a 51% attack, at least 200 million TH/s is needed, so about 1.8 million S19s, with a cost of about $15 billion. There is also the cost of the supporting infrastructure, labor and electricity.

As far as your concern about changing the rules -- it is not possible. Changing the rules would simply cause a fork, like BCH, BSV, and BTG, that can be ignored.

The most likely attack would be a denial of service. The government would prevent other miners from adding blocks to the chain and publish empty blocks for as long as needed in order to kill the network. In the end it would be expensive, but it is probably doable if there is sufficient political will behind it.

Would those 1.8 Million S19s be acting as one "node"?  (I'm using quotes because I don't even know if that's the right term).  In other words, would the other miners be able to see some giant stepping into the network trying to pull something squirrely and be able to defend it?  In reality $15 Bn is chump change to the government.  I could see them doing something like this and covering it up.  I mean....lots of people say we never landed on the moon. I'm just a little nervous because 1% of my net worth (in 2013) has now turned into 99% of it.hahaha.  I see the value, and don't trust the grimy politicians.

[moderator's note: consecutive posts merged]

[cabron]

How difficult (expensive, realistic, etc) would it be for the US gubmint to buy up enough mining power to hijack the network, change the rules, and send it all to zero?

An S19 Pro costs about $8k and has a hash rate of 110 TH/s. For a 51% attack, at least 200 million TH/s is needed, so about 1.8 million S19s, with a cost of about $15 billion. There is also the cost of the supporting infrastructure, labor and electricity.

As far as your concern about changing the rules -- it is not possible. Changing the rules would simply cause a fork, like BCH, BSV, and BTG, that can be ignored.

The most likely attack would be a denial of service. The government would prevent other miners from adding blocks to the chain and publish empty blocks for as long as needed in order to kill the network. In the end it would be expensive, but it is probably doable if there is sufficient political will behind it.

Would those 1.8 Million S19s be acting as one "node"?  (I'm using quotes because I don't even know if that's the right term).  In other words, would the other miners be able to see some giant stepping into the network trying to pull something squirrely and be able to defend it?  In reality $15 Bn is chump change to the government.  I could see them doing something like this and covering it up.  I mean....lots of people say we never landed on the moon. I'm just a little nervous because 1% of my net worth (in 2013) has now turned into 99% of it.hahaha.  I see the value, and don't trust the grimy politicians.

Like whats said above, the 51% attack won't help. Even that 15Bn because it will just fork another chain and what they'd get is an altcoin. All the BTC holders will receive free money thanks to them.

There is no hijacking in BTC. This is why they'd rather be regulating BTC miners to hijack it and we have seen it coming already by the narrative that BTC waste so much energy.

[Harpaggie2001]

[/quote]

Like whats said above, the 51% attack won't help. Even that 15Bn because it will just fork another chain and what they'd get is an altcoin. All the BTC holders will receive free money thanks to them.

There is no hijacking in BTC. This is why they'd rather be regulating BTC miners to hijack it and we have seen it coming already by the narrative that BTC waste so much energy.

[/quote]

Thanks for the info!  What's mind boggling to me is how they can push and subsidize the battery powered car narrative, which get charged via the exact same electric grid as BTC.  In your opinion, is there any exostnential threat to BTC?  As long as we have someone welcoming the miners I can't see regulating the mining as a realistic way to end it.  It sounds like plenty of third world countries would be in line to sell miners electricity if it got to that point.  Kenya is nice in December from what I hear.....

[Bitstar_coin]

And as for your friend who keeps telling you to sell for over 9 years now, has he done the math and seen how much you have gained! The value of your btc now since 2013? That's insane.
You are a true holder and most certainly a diamond hand, instead of constantly tormenting you to sell he should be buying (if he hasn't bought before) with this opportunity the bear season has presented. Am surprised he is not desperately looking for money to buy the dip knowing how your investment appreciated.

[PrivacyG]

Thanks for the insight!  In regards to your second comment.  Could you elaborate a bit more about what you mean by "would take HOURS at most for us to put everything back in place after which all their resources and effort become worthless and useless."? Are you saying that enough people would see the fuckery taking place and produce an alternate means of securing the network?  Could you elaborate a little more?  And also for the record, explain it like I can barely use an iPhone. 

I am not the best ELI-5 candidate but I can give this a try.

If the 'US gubmint' decides to take Bitcoin over, they would need a LOT of mining equipment.  All of this equipment they need obviously requires resources to be produced and there is of course an approximate or specific amount of such equipment that can be produced per day or year.

The government needs to own 51% of the hash rate in order to 'overtake' the network.  Since more and more and more powerful mining equipment is added every day, they need to have all this massive amount of equipment built, shipped and ready to be powered on in a reasonable time.  Otherwise, if all of this is done over years, the mining hash rate may increase enough so the government needs even more power to compensate and reach 51% again.

Now say they have everything planned so well they actually do get to own 51% of the network.  Now they 'control' Bitcoin.  What happens next?

Bitcoin developers, miners et cetera move on to another mining algorithm.  If the algorithm is changed and Bitcoin 'splits up' similarly to how Bitcoin split up into BTC and BCH years ago, the government's massive effort are redeemed worthless and useless immediately.  Because their massive amount of equipment now can not mine the real Bitcoin.  It can only continue to mine the old Bitcoin that they attacked.  But as soon as you and I find out there has been an attack, we will discard the attacked network in favor of the new one.

Let us say we get to change the algorithm so that this special mining equipment can not mine Bitcoin any more.  Let us say we get to change it so that computer graphic cards can be used for mining instead.  Now the government needs to purchase enough graphic cards to own 51% of the new, intact network.  If they can do this, we just move on to another algorithm.  And so on.

At the end of the day, it is just wasted time and efforts for them.  If someone has something to correct about my 'theory', please chime in and do.

-
Regards,
PrivacyG

[Upgrade00]

Nothing makes me happier than dangling it in my friends faces who have been screaming "SELL THAT SHIT WHILE YOU CAN" for 9 years. Now that it might actually threaten the USD, I'm gonna ask what I hope is a stupid question.  

It feels good to be proved right, but showcasing your wealth publicly, even to close friends may not be a good idea. Your financial worth should be private as much as is possible.

Thanks for the insight!  In regards to your second comment.  Could you elaborate a bit more about what you mean by "would take HOURS at most for us to put everything back in place after which all their resources and effort become worthless and useless."? Are you saying that enough people would see the fuckery taking place and produce an alternate means of securing the network?  Could you elaborate a little more?  And also for the record, explain it like I can barely use an iPhone.  

The system operates on consensus, everyone has to accept any change to the system for it to be effective. After a 51% attack, other nodes and miners can identify the malicious player and choose to orphan blocks created during the attack and reject at protocol change.

[PrivacyG]

The system operates on consensus, everyone has to accept any change to the system for it to be effective. After a 51% attack, other nodes and miners can identify the malicious player and choose to orphan blocks created during the attack and reject at protocol change.

This still requires a hard fork and a change of algorithm, right?  Or is there another easier way around?

-
Regards,
PrivacyG

[Hamphser]

How difficult (expensive, realistic, etc) would it be for the US gubmint to buy up enough mining power to hijack the network, change the rules, and send it all to zero?

An S19 Pro costs about $8k and has a hash rate of 110 TH/s. For a 51% attack, at least 200 million TH/s is needed, so about 1.8 million S19s, with a cost of about $15 billion. There is also the cost of the supporting infrastructure, labor and electricity.

As far as your concern about changing the rules -- it is not possible. Changing the rules would simply cause a fork, like BCH, BSV, and BTG, that can be ignored.

The most likely attack would be a denial of service. The government would prevent other miners from adding blocks to the chain and publish empty blocks for as long as needed in order to kill the network. In the end it would be expensive, but it is probably doable if there is sufficient political will behind it.

Considering that $15B then i could say that it is really that doable if they are really that serious on taking Bitcoin down but it seems no one or they arent getting that support on doing so in speaking on giving out

a network attack and minding off on how the hell they would really be spending out on something which it cant even assure if it would totally kill down the network or just giving out some temporal effects

but not totally a reason on making it dead? For sure there wont even how filthy rich are those people who do tend to support such agenda but well we dont know on whats coming though.

[Fortify]

Been a HODLer since 2013. Still buying every single day.  Haven't sold a singe sat.  Admittedly, next bull run I'm gonna leverage my BTC or scrape some profits. Nothing makes me happier than dangling it in my friends faces who have been screaming "SELL THAT SHIT WHILE YOU CAN" for 9 years. Now that it might actually threaten the USD, I'm gonna ask what I hope is a stupid question. 

How difficult (expensive, realistic, etc) would it be for the US gubmint to buy up enough mining power to hijack the network, change the rules, and send it all to zero?

Admittedly I don't know much about the technical side.  I buy it because I saw / see the value from a financial perspective.  I understand the basics, but when you'll start talmbout hash rates, I get lost like a goose in tall weeds.

Once someone can explain to me why it should cost the same amount of money to wire funds between 2 banks next door to each other, as it does to mail a fckn brick from Miami to Maine, I might weaken my bullish outlook on BTC. Not to mention they don't process transactions on weekends?  Why? Because the ladies poking the keyboards are "off"?  Okay Flintstones...... Until then, I'm still a buyer baby.

And please, ELI5

You seem to be trapped in a bubble, especially looking at America only. The banks in America are charging ridiculous fees to their customers and many of these don't exist in places like Europe. Bitcoin will always be competing with the fees charged to businesses by payment networks like Visa and Mastercard, that's what you should be focusing on and they are in the range of 1-3.5%. In hindsight it seems rather foolish to supposedly having held your Bitcoin all this time - if you had sold a chunk near the peak, or even as it slowly dropped down, you'd be able to buy in more as it continued to drop. but admittedly that gets into trading territory that some people avoid.

[hatshepsut93]

Miners don't set the rules, in fact no one sets the rules. Everyone is choosing for themselves which rules they want to follow, and a network forms from nodes that follow the same rules. If miners start mining blocks with incompatible rules, no one will validate their blocks.

Majority attack is insanely costly and can't truly stop Bitcoin, because the community can decide to change the mining algorithm and render attacker's resources useless.

However, Bitcoin can be hijacked from the inside. If someone would create a new version of Bitcoin and will start convincing other users to switch to it, then the network can be taken over. The original network will still exist, but it would be much smaller. There was already one such attack - SegWit2x, and it failed completely. But we should be vigilant for any new such attacks. Especially if prominent voices in community will start pushing for hard forks.

[uchegod-21]

Nothing makes me happier than dangling it in my friends faces who have been screaming "SELL THAT SHIT WHILE YOU CAN" for 9 years.

Do you feel safe when your friends and probably others know how much bitcoin you have? Do you feel safe to understand that they know you have been hodling for 9 years. Yes, you feel safe and that is why you dangle it in the faces of your friends.
Well, I don't know the part of the world you live, but generally it is not cool to make people understand you hold much about of bit for security purposes.

Bitcoin did not start threatening USD today, if they could not do it 10yrs ago when there aren't much people in the network, I don't think they can do it now that millions are into the network.

[AmoreJaz]

Nothing makes me happier than dangling it in my friends faces who have been screaming "SELL THAT SHIT WHILE YOU CAN" for 9 years.

Do you feel safe when your friends and probably others know how much bitcoin you have? Do you feel safe to understand that they know you have been hodling for 9 years. Yes, you feel safe and that is why you dangle it in the faces of your friends.
Well, I don't know the part of the world you live, but generally it is not cool to make people understand you hold much about of bit for security purposes.

Bitcoin did not start threatening USD today, if they could not do it 10yrs ago when there aren't much people in the network, I don't think they can do it now that millions are into the network.

i don't think it is a smart move showing off to your friends about your BTC stash. because these days, you don't know who to trust anymore. better keep it to yourself. you will have more peace of mind if very few to none know about your BTC holdings. also, don't ever post it in your social media channels that you are holding it very long. you are just subjecting yourself to scamming, hacking and other fraudulent activities. but if you are so proud about this, then go on, but don't blame anyone if your computer starts acting strangely.

[Harpaggie2001]

Thanks for the insight!  In regards to your second comment.  Could you elaborate a bit more about what you mean by "would take HOURS at most for us to put everything back in place after which all their resources and effort become worthless and useless."? Are you saying that enough people would see the fuckery taking place and produce an alternate means of securing the network?  Could you elaborate a little more?  And also for the record, explain it like I can barely use an iPhone. 

I am not the best ELI-5 candidate but I can give this a try.

If the 'US gubmint' decides to take Bitcoin over, they would need a LOT of mining equipment.  All of this equipment they need obviously requires resources to be produced and there is of course an approximate or specific amount of such equipment that can be produced per day or year.

The government needs to own 51% of the hash rate in order to 'overtake' the network.  Since more and more and more powerful mining equipment is added every day, they need to have all this massive amount of equipment built, shipped and ready to be powered on in a reasonable time.  Otherwise, if all of this is done over years, the mining hash rate may increase enough so the government needs even more power to compensate and reach 51% again.

Now say they have everything planned so well they actually do get to own 51% of the network.  Now they 'control' Bitcoin.  What happens next?

Bitcoin developers, miners et cetera move on to another mining algorithm.  If the algorithm is changed and Bitcoin 'splits up' similarly to how Bitcoin split up into BTC and BCH years ago, the government's massive effort are redeemed worthless and useless immediately.  Because their massive amount of equipment now can not mine the real Bitcoin.  It can only continue to mine the old Bitcoin that they attacked.  But as soon as you and I find out there has been an attack, we will discard the attacked network in favor of the new one.

Let us say we get to change the algorithm so that this special mining equipment can not mine Bitcoin any more.  Let us say we get to change it so that computer graphic cards can be used for mining instead.  Now the government needs to purchase enough graphic cards to own 51% of the new, intact network.  If they can do this, we just move on to another algorithm.  And so on.

At the end of the day, it is just wasted time and efforts for them.  If someone has something to correct about my 'theory', please chime in and do.

-
Regards,
PrivacyG

Thank you for taking the time to explain that.  I get it now!

[suzanne5223]

How difficult (expensive, realistic, etc) would it be for the US gubmint to buy up enough mining power to hijack the network, change the rules, and send it all to zero?

I don't know how to do the calculation of the Hashrate power and how much it will cost the US to hijack the Bitcoin network but trust me if it is something they can do they would have done it a long time ago instead of some government saying negative things about Bitcoin and they also understand that crypto is inevitable.
With that being said, the US government has a lot on its plate in terms of debt and wasting some funds just to hijack innovative technology which has helped a lot of their citizen get a job will never be their next motive not even now that the institution is also an investor.