Mining BTC and keeping the Alts?

[benjamin07]

Hi,

I jsut want to ask for a vote or opinion. I have lots of miners and all are mining BTC, some cloud miners on Scrypt.

Is there a real risk that the BC network is 51pced that I should keep on mining Scrypt and not converting those Scrypt into BTC, keeping them as they are, because the risk of 51%ing the Scrypt networks is very low?

How real is this risk of 51% on BTC network?

[xstr8guy]

Not sure why you think cashing in your Scrypt coin for BTC will hurt the network. If that's not what you meant, please try to explain again because your post is not clear.

[benjamin07]

Hi sorry that is not what i meant, i will explain more.

Cashing my scrypt for BTC will only decrease the value of the scrypt and increase the value of BTC: shift value from scrypt to BTC.

My question is related to the stability of the networks.

LTC et al. are all gpus and gridseed miners until now, and the new large asics are really de-centralised so scrypt network begin 51%ed is reasonably low.

On the opposite side:

BTC network is more and more pooled due to the increase in difficulty, essentially 4 or 5 pools maximum that have value. My question: is the risk of cex.io for example becoming a 51% a clear and present and tangible risk, or is there a way that the BTC network will never/low prob get 51%. Some are saying: we keep close watch on this and if we think our cloud is mining on a pool that is approaching 51% then we will pull off (tough luck, someone else can pull in! the higher the PHs the more the payouts)

To avoid the risk of 51%, what i can do is keep my LTCs DrakCoin etc all as they are, do not convert them, just in case the BTC gets 51%ed but then:
1) Only BTC has real value
2) The Alts risk being 0 value very quickly
3) Stretching on many fronts makes my mining returns too thin, i have only that much equipment

The risk of 51% for me is the BTC devs say: ok we've beaten this to the ground, we know all there is to know, we've had our experiment, now let's lauch wallet 1.0 with everything fresh again

There is the millions of dollars in cost of electricity to stack up against the above and what is the purpose of pumping more BTCs if they are going to be obsolete, as in people still testing how to send BTC to the void..

So what do you think?

[philipma1957]

I think you do not understand that the danger of a 51% attack/destruction Is not the real problem BTC faces.

I think that wanting to know how to hedge against a BTC devaluation is a good want.

I think that if you want to guard against btc price drop  holding alt coins may work.  On the other hand it may not work. 

I have often thought of how to hedge against coin collapse and I can suggest finding a coin dealer /exchange (a) load it with some cash and setting a floor of 100 usd at that point buy in.

Also have a coin dealer/ exchange (b) load it with some btc  and set a selling price of 400 at that price sell out.

do this with ltc and btc.   other ideas come to mind but no great ones.

[benjamin07]

Hi,

I used to think this crypto thing is all game with 1000 alt coins out there, almost made my own coin.

After doing many transaction with BTC, i ask myself how can the world live without an eCurrency. Every time i need to go to the bank to make a transfer and pay them $xx in fees, i just don't with merchants that accept BTC. It's really a good system.

I maintain my concern is the 51%. I'm not concerned if I bought some BTC at $680 and now it is $470 and even $300 for an hour or so one or two weeks ago. If it drops down to $20 again I am not concerned. I do not associate the $ with the BTC. All what the USD/BTC means for me is how much i can get one way or the other.

My concern is the value of BTC going down to 0 due to 51% threat becoming real with very large pool that can direct their power anywhere.

Suppose it happens, the people one the pool that validated the sneaky block will not be all happy, they could have BTC or mining on the other pools, some 50-60 BTC in "checking accounts".

So there is no real advantage for anyone to do a 51% except for manufacturers who no longer want to push themselves into the next asic, "let's rather make a new algo" or "it's time to give that X11 thumbs up"... they have sold their hardware and their return from mining is ever diminishing and if this is not on their mind then there must be something wrong. The precedent is on the board of directors:

• Luke Jr 51%ing BBQ Coin using other people's hardware and not being criminally prosecuted because nobody cares.
• The black sheep Mark Karpeles ruins the reputation of Bitcoin planet wide, sending the efforts of many good people down the drain and enjoying a fortune the size of the crook that he is
• etc.

forgive me if I don't doubt for a jiffy that they are all the different faces of the same forged coin.

I think from your answer the best way is to keep those alts in alt form.

[xstr8guy]

I'm certainly no expert on 51% attack on the BTC network. But it seems less threatened than it did when Cex was getting close to capturing a majority of the network. DiscusFish's growth has eased that threat.

I'm more alarmed by the threat of centralization of the network by private mining conglomerates. Public pools for @home miners are quickly become irrelevant. Their share of the network continues to shrink or grow much more slowly than the total network hashrate.

[ChuckBuck]

Doesn't appear to be an imminent threat for 51% attack:



GHash.io scares seem to be a thing of the past, compared to a few months back.

Unless Unknown continues to grow, but most likely that's the ASIC manufacturers with their private farms, or Discus Fish increases their pool size.