It is now 51%

[yakuza699]

What we can do now?

[alani123]

This is the 24Hr graph. 

Here's the live one.

[IYFTech]

I'm pretty sure much of the "unknown" section is ghash also - they're just not signing all their blocks. Dodgy f*ckers.

[alani123]

I'm pretty sure much of the "unknown" section is ghash also - they're just not signing all their blocks. Dodgy f*ckers.

They've always been showcasing their power. People only take seriously blockchain.info when it comes to seeing where the hashrate comes from and this bugs me.

[Ashbite]

if Ghash hits 51% its not gonna be good guys.
The split will cause big chaos and probably negative effects will happen to bitcoin.

[alani123]

if Ghash hits 51% its not gonna be good guys.
The split will cause big chaos and probably negative effects will happen to bitcoin.

It already hit 51% once today. Doesn't seem like they were preparing for an attack. A modified client would need to be used in order to take advantage of having more than 50% of the hashpower against the network. It doesn't seem likely that a big company like them would want to do this to themselves. Atleast that's what some people've been saying.

[griffinriz]

why miners are not moving to other pools? i guess Miners are greedy too, if people don't invest in bitcoin because of the fear of 51% attack then there will be no mining 

[Majixagi]

if Ghash hits 51% its not gonna be good guys.
The split will cause big chaos and probably negative effects will happen to bitcoin.

It already hit 51% once today. Doesn't seem like they were preparing for an attack. A modified client would need to be used in order to take advantage of having more than 50% of the hashpower against the network. It doesn't seem likely that a big company like them would want to do this to themselves. Atleast that's what some people've been saying.

A panic sell of CEX.io hash would be good for them. They could buy it up low and resell when they "mitigated" the problem again. There are dozens of ways that breaking 51% would work to their advantage. Not saying they are doing this on purpose - draw your own conclusion - but the argument that this only hurts them is not sound.

[SilentH]

how would people selling their GH's shares lower the hashrate? They sell them to other people, who would then also be mining.  Assuming CEX bought them back themselves, its not like they would turn them off.

[Majixagi]

how would people selling their GH's shares lower the hashrate? They sell them to other people, who would then also be mining.  Assuming CEX bought them back themselves, its not like they would turn them off.

It wouldn't.

They would mitigate by stopping private mining, splitting hash to another pool, following through on their promise to allow cloud mining on other pools, etc.

[ShakyhandsBTCer]

if Ghash hits 51% its not gonna be good guys.
The split will cause big chaos and probably negative effects will happen to bitcoin.

It already hit 51% once today. Doesn't seem like they were preparing for an attack. A modified client would need to be used in order to take advantage of having more than 50% of the hashpower against the network. It doesn't seem likely that a big company like them would want to do this to themselves. Atleast that's what some people've been saying.

A panic sell of CEX.io hash would be good for them. They could buy it up low and resell when they "mitigated" the problem again. There are dozens of ways that breaking 51% would work to their advantage. Not saying they are doing this on purpose - draw your own conclusion - but the argument that this only hurts them is not sound.

Even if they got 51% of the hashrate they would not necessarily carry out a 51% attack, as doing so would essentially prevent them from every selling their equipment (GH/s again).

[Wookie50]

Even if they got 51% of the hashrate they would not necessarily carry out a 51% attack, as doing so would essentially prevent them from every selling their equipment (GH/s again).

That is not the problem.  The problem is that for the bitcoin to get to $100,000 per btc, you need to have blind trust in the network.  And that includes trusting that there isn't a shred of possibility that there is someone crazy enough to do something stupid.  And we know there are a lot of crazy people.  

Scenario for you: China pays GHASH $1Billion to purchase the pool for the purpose of destroying bitcoin.  $1B is nothing to China -- far less that the threat bitcoin poses.

[xstr8guy]

Can't we just have one "GHash is evil" thread please? There are 15 other threads involving this topic so there's no need to start another.

[Angela8488]

We have any way, except to stop using ghash.io.

[philipma1957]

Even if they got 51% of the hashrate they would not necessarily carry out a 51% attack, as doing so would essentially prevent them from every selling their equipment (GH/s again).

That is not the problem.  The problem is that for the bitcoin to get to $100,000 per btc, you need to have blind trust in the network.  And that includes trusting that there isn't a shred of possibility that there is someone crazy enough to do something stupid.  And we know there are a lot of crazy people.  

Scenario for you: China pays GHASH $1Billion to purchase the pool for the purpose of destroying bitcoin.  $1B is nothing to China -- far less that the threat bitcoin poses.

china would need to pay more then 1 billion,  but why do it no need to .

 btc will have more then enough issues as diff rises faster then efficiency and fiat price.


really ask your self why do  people buy hash power at well over  4 dollars a gh ?

 last i looked ghash sells at .00762 whic his more then 4.20 usd.

[ShakyhandsBTCer]

Even if they got 51% of the hashrate they would not necessarily carry out a 51% attack, as doing so would essentially prevent them from every selling their equipment (GH/s again).

That is not the problem.  The problem is that for the bitcoin to get to $100,000 per btc, you need to have blind trust in the network.  And that includes trusting that there isn't a shred of possibility that there is someone crazy enough to do something stupid.  And we know there are a lot of crazy people.  

Scenario for you: China pays GHASH $1Billion to purchase the pool for the purpose of destroying bitcoin.  $1B is nothing to China -- far less that the threat bitcoin poses.

You are correct over the long term, but over the short term it is not as much of an issue.

If ghash were to receive such a payment they could simply take the payment, announce it and the miners would simply leave. They would still have the payment and the network would be secure

[Wookie50]

Even if they got 51% of the hashrate they would not necessarily carry out a 51% attack, as doing so would essentially prevent them from every selling their equipment (GH/s again).

That is not the problem.  The problem is that for the bitcoin to get to $100,000 per btc, you need to have blind trust in the network.  And that includes trusting that there isn't a shred of possibility that there is someone crazy enough to do something stupid.  And we know there are a lot of crazy people.  

Scenario for you: China pays GHASH $1Billion to purchase the pool for the purpose of destroying bitcoin.  $1B is nothing to China -- far less that the threat bitcoin poses.

You are correct over the long term, but over the short term it is not as much of an issue.

If ghash were to receive such a payment they could simply take the payment, announce it and the miners would simply leave. They would still have the payment and the network would be secure

You are technically correct.  However, would someone want to put their life savings in a network where you have to trust that miners would simply leave.  What if the "unknown" pool gets to be 50+% and it's really controlled by the China government? 

The entire point for Bitcoin is that you "trust not a single party" but the entire network.  However, in the world where it is so likely that 51% of the networking power could possibly be controlled by a party who we all have to trust... well, that breaks the bitcoin promise.

This is a serious, serious issue and the Bitcoin Foundation better be issuing a statement as to what they will do to remedy.  Them staying quiet is also worrisome.

[devthedev]

This is a serious, serious issue and the Bitcoin Foundation better be issuing a statement as to what they will do to remedy.  Them staying quiet is also worrisome.

The Bitcoin Foundation is tainted. I wouldn't mind never hearing those words again in my life.

[taipo]

The 51% is an issue for the core developers.