Topic: 51% Attack - page 4. (Read 1878 times)

Yes that always seems to happen. Newbies usually are those are most vulnerable to falling for anything trolls and FUD spreading users might post. It is hard to blame them for being ignorant, maybe they are just beginning to understand what crypto is how it works so fall prey to anything anybody writes here. The onus really is on the user posting to ensure they are responsible but that is not always the case - hence the words trolls and fudsters come to mind as you put it.

Just like you imprison somebody for carrying carbon, hydrogen nitrogen, and oxygen.
It's the same stuff that your body is made of, how can somebody go to prison for that?
Nobody will go to prison for 1 and 0 but you will go for prison if what those 1s and 0s make together is something deemed illegal just how you're going to prison for C21H23NO5.

If a government would want that much to get bitcoin eliminated from the economy they will not target the chain or nodes or the hash rate, they will go after users.
As I said before and others did, if they would make holding cryptocurrencies a felony with mandatory 25 years, would you still use it?

No 51% or Sybil or any kind of attacks orchestrated by the government will happen.

Plus trolls/fudsters are taking advantage of the newbies' ignorance. But truly, if they understood what makes the network/protocol secure, and "who truly follows who", then they wouldn't be worried.

That explanation makes sense

I did ask him for any links but he never got back. There is so much confusion and FUD surrounding nearly all aspects of crypto that people hear one thing and repeat it to others. In many cases people make it up as they go along. You are right, confusing mining pools with mining farms (and the hash rate) is probably one of the biggest reasons people believe China is in a position to control various aspects of Bitcoin. The reality is far more diverse.

I believe you should watch the video in this tweet, https://twitter.com/bitcoin/status/1225544194946555904

The incentive-structure works, it's better to mine honestly.


We're off-topic, this will be my last reply. Ross Ulbricht wasn't convicted for sending 1s and 0s. Maybe YOU should ask him.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ross_Ulbricht

people usually either fall for the FUD that has been around for years convincing them of powers of China when it comes to bitcoin whether it is in mining scene or in the market. or they confuse mining pools with mining farms and since there are mining pools with Chinese names (that have different servers around the world not just in China) they think China "owns" a lot of hashrate.

Do you have links about this? Where did you get that information from?

Good points, some of them, but very very far from practical in a realistic scenario. The cat is out of the bag, and how would you imprison people who pass around mere 1s and 0s?

You also seem to like to see Bitcoiners to be imprisoned. Hahaha.

If someone were to hypothetically successfully pull off a 51% attach on bitcoin, there would be a loss of confidence in all crypto coins, even if bitcoin changed its algorithm.

Assuming a government could control the means of production (China), the cost to produce new miners sufficient to execute a 51% attack is somewhere in the $2-3 billion range. For the case of China, this figure could be lower if the government confiscated large scale mining operations that are easier to detect.

I can only think of two reasons why a government would do this 1) they are unable to enforce the collection of taxes on a very large scale, or 2) dissidents are using bitcoin to pay for expenses related to doing harm to the government.

In addition to the cost of producing the miners, a country that pulled off a 51% attack on bitcoin would be known to the rest of the world that investing in that country, and housing IP in that country is not safe. Providing an estimate of these costs is above my pay grade, but I suspect it would be significant and a factor of the country's GDP, and international trade. I don't think a government would try this unless it was in a desperate situation.

Overall, I would consider the risk of a 51% attack to be low. If the bitcoin experiment were to fail, I would say it probably will not fail because of something that can be traced back to a 51% attack.

Just because most mining power comes from China doesn't mean their government can take over Bitcoin through a 51% attack. I've never studied who owns the most Bitcoin power in China but I highly doubt (and I think it's pretty logic) that it's their government. Otherwise, Bitcoin would be right now placed under a serious threat of centralization and power.

Considering Danny's calculus, how will the governments gain any benefit from attacking Bitcoin? A successful attack would only determine devs to focus on Bitcoin's security against these attacks, hence making Bitcoin even stronger. A failure would be a big embarrassment for the governments and would make Bitcoin even stronger than the scenario of a success.

Why would a government spend so much money just to try an attack..

China can already do that. It has more than 51% of all Bitcoin mining power in pools. They can easily take over the pools.

There will be no consensus for a hardfork. Because until this really happen and is only something estimated, Bitcoin is as flexible as 20 m of railroad track

You're underestimating the amount of resources and the benefits governments would gain from attacking Bitcoin. Cryptos will still thrive regardless of if the attack suceeds or not. Its not difficult for Bitcoin to fork to a different algroithm and the government would be left with a huge pile of useless ASICs.

If they have enough resources, there's no fight at all.

If a government decides to buy a big stack of miners to perform the 51% attack i think other countries and bitcoin miners will not allow that and it would be a huge hash rate fight. But if the government wins then they can do some nasty moves on the blockchain.

Do three pools.  have it look like it is a pps+. pool battle.

a price war.

if three pps+ pools  were all paying 125% they would get a lot of the network.

people would think cool not fear this as it is three pools having a price war.

that is also a good point. i believe BTG's algorithm is based on ZCash mining algorithm called Equihash so maybe a better comparison would be with ZCash hashrate which is like this:

5,636,579,094
    2,745,036

BTG is still too small making such attacks very easy.

Bitcoin's hashing power is so overwhelming that even after killing off half its network you'd still have plenty of protection left. Obsolete mining farms would take their place as mining becomes profitable for older hardware again.



There's not enough hashing power available for rent to mount a reasonable attack. Simply seizing private property of highly profitable companies to then run these companies into the ground on the off-chance that one could get enough hashing power for a successful attack is a losing proposition.




Which means less hardware being produced meaning less hardware being available for a potential attack.




Making PoW mining illegal would simply push mining operations to countries where mining is still legal -- assuming you could even successfully persecute miners.

A price drop caused by unfavorable regulation would lessen Bitcoin's hashrate but still not make an attack much easier (ie. see my answere to (3) above)

both of these  depend on how big a hashrate mining farms have. for example if there were a mining farm with 60% or even 30% of the hashrate then it could cause a lot of problems in short term until difficulty adjusts but when mining farms have 1-5% it won't matter.
i don't believe there is any single farm that has a big enough hashrate that its shutdown could cause any trouble for bitcoin.

that would be pure speculation about price. but apart from that if hashrate doesn't grow that means bitcoin price isn't going up and that means it stopped growing in which case there is no incentive for government to attack something that is not even growing!

I have to agree with this. The easiest way for governmental agencies to put any crypto out in the cold would legislation because it would be easier/convenient to pass laws rather than to try to force a 51% attack.

In argue always the current hashrate is shown how hard it would be. But you have to think of:

1) they can destroy or simply cut off the network some of these huge mining farms so hashrate would drop

2) they can use these mining farms in any way (rent them, command them)

3) the hash rate maybe not constantly grow after 2 more halvings



For me much simpler is forbid POW with the climate argument. Lets say the European union does forbid the trading, import and mining of proof of work currencys. Of course they can be used in shadow but the price will significant drop. Maybe this new regulation organisation some kind of foundet in Davos does that nearly wourld wide.