51% attack

[revilo]

IF a 51% attack truly did happen then Litecoin could just step up to the #1 slot. Then if a 51% attack happened to Litecoin (Completely different hardware required) then a CPU based coin like Primecoin would step up.
etc..
Not gonna happen.

[1715517593]

1715517593

[1715517593]

1715517593

[1715517593]

1715517593

[1715517593]

1715517593

[1715517593]

1715517593

[Wilikon]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bi2thGzzNSs

seems like it's alot easier then some people claimed...

So someone will buy 1 billion worth of machines to destroy bitcoin. The thing is if someone buys that much of ASIC power it will increase the value of bitcoin because that would be the number one news on Coindesk, bloomberg, etc for a while. That someone would have increased his capital just by simply buying the gear. Next is the 51% attack to destroy bitcoin. Way before the value of bitcoin goes down to zero, a lot of bitcoiners would have converted to another alt coin, making that new alt coin the new Gold crypto. Since his Asic were specifically made for bitcoin mining, that someone will need to invest in another billion to break that new gold crypto.
Meanwhile investors are looking into that someone (most likely an evil bank in that scenario) and wonder why their money is spent so foolishly then will force a change the board direction or walk with their captial.

You don't need 1 billion to kill bitcoin. You would need multiple of billions and even that does not guaranty anything.

Does that story make sense to you?

Can you please explain your calculations again?

The current hashrate is 55,000 Th/s.

Each Th/s at this time costs around $2,500 (maybe lower in huge orders).
In order to hit the 51% , you need at least lets say 30,000Th/s , to make sure by the time they get delivered you can counter it.

So $2,500 X 30,000Th/s = $75,000,000 approximately.

With $75,000,000, you can potentially control the whole BTC network.

Not close to a billion you say.

Who said that was my calculation? I clicked on the link and watched the video in the OP. Do the same you will see where that number came from.
Why would any bitcoiner NOT leave and transfers to the next alt coin if that scenario was coming, no matter 1 billion or 75M?

[allthingsluxury]

This has been a common topic for years.

[kingscrown]

ud need LOADS of cash to bribe the 3 pools + be sure they wont tell.

imo impossible.

[Brangdon]

IF a 51% attack truly did happen then Litecoin could just step up to the #1 slot. Then if a 51% attack happened to Litecoin (Completely different hardware required) then a CPU based coin like Primecoin would step up.
etc..

While it's true that bitcoin miners might want to switch, they are in the same boat as the attacker: their ASIC hardware is no good for the altcoin. So the hashrate of the altcoin will be much lower. Also, for non-ASIC currencies the attacker could probably rent cloud servers from Amazon or someone, so the capital cost of an attack would be lower.

[rmines]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bi2thGzzNSs

seems like it's alot easier then some people claimed...

bribing 3 mining pool owners is much cheaper then buying the equipment

Never thought of it that way, good remark.
Let's hope this will never happen. They don't even need to be bribed, governments or criminal organizations could use other ways to force the pool owners to comply using other, more drastic methods.

[apsvinet]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bi2thGzzNSs

seems like it's alot easier then some people claimed...

bribing 3 mining pool owners is much cheaper then buying the equipment

Never thought of it that way, good remark.
Let's hope this will never happen. They don't even need to be bribed, governments or criminal organizations could use other ways to force the pool owners to comply using other, more drastic methods.

Meh, lets hope they till the end fight for the community and don't let anything bribe / threaten them.

[rmines]

I don't think many people would prefer having their loved ones injured or killed, being tortured or any kind of that stuff to defend bitcoin..
But I could always be wrong, let's hope they will never be put in that position.

[apsvinet]

I don't think many people would prefer having their loved ones injured or killed, being tortured or any kind of that stuff to defend bitcoin..
But I could always be wrong, let's hope they will never be put in that position.

I don't see what anyone could actually gain from doing such a thing, it sounds like pure evil, doing it for the sake of doing it.

[rmines]

If you're replying at the last message, there's no need to quote the previous message.

I could think of many reasons, one being money and greed because people could benefit greatly from a 51% attack.
Also don't forget governments.

[jparsley]

It a lot harder than u think. Plus anyone spending that amount on mining hardware would make some btc  rather than attack it

[rmines]

What about the previously discussed argument of just threatening/bribing the largest pool owners?
And what if the goal is not to make money but just kill the system? I could think of many reasons for (some) governments to do this.

[apsvinet]

It a lot harder than u think. Plus anyone spending that amount on mining hardware would make some btc  rather than attack it

I think the video was very clear on exactly how hard/easy it would be. The point was not to use the 51% of the hashing power to make money - but to gain an advantage over other people and destroy bitcoins.

[bountygiver]

To prevent 51% attack, someone has to mass produce low power asic at low cost.
So when every bitcoin user are solomining, we can easily achieve a crazy hashrate deterring 51% attacks.

But the current problem is most people's mindset. They always think mining = profiting.
We have to remind them the fact that mining is to secure the network instead.

But we need low power asics just because using computer hardware to mine consumes too much power and slowing the pc so people definitely don't want that.
Each asic don't need to have the hashrate that is comparable with those profit-based farms, I believe we will have more users than the farms have asics.

[kthejung]

According to Sotoshi's white paper, it seems that a 51% attack would only disrupt current transactions but not affect the previous blocks.

[apsvinet]

According to Sotoshi's white paper, it seems that a 51% attack would only disrupt current transactions but not affect the previous blocks.

Where can one find this?

[Zhan21]

Hope it dosent happen.

[rmines]

According to Sotoshi's white paper, it seems that a 51% attack would only disrupt current transactions but not affect the previous blocks.

Where can one find this?

I think he means the original paper by Satoshi https://bitcoin.org/bitcoin.pdf
However I can't find any explicit mentioning of the 51% attack in it.

[vnvizow]

Not doable in my opinion

[Soros Shorts]

According to Sotoshi's white paper, it seems that a 51% attack would only disrupt current transactions but not affect the previous blocks.

Yes, and people seem to forget that these attack blocks still have to be accepted and propagated by regular Bitcoin nodes throughout the network. There are 2 possibilities:

1) The attack blocks violate the Bitcoin protocol. In this case they will not be relayed by regular nodes and they will immediately orphan out

2) The attack blocks do not violate the Bitcoin protocol. In this case they will be relayed by regular nodes and make  their way through the network. However, because the protocol is obeyed the scope of the attack would be restricted. E.g. the exclusion of certain transactions from the block.

In any case, although transactions would likely be lost the disruption would be temporary. Miners will eventually leave the compromised pool and things will go back to normal.