wdym by socialism? that a user can own more than 51% of the hash power? i think nearly all pow network has that weakness. i don't understand how it is socialism anyway, doesn't this mean that anyone can participate instead?
When you talk to a Socialist and tell them it doesn't work and point examples to them their response is always, "that wasn't real socialism" and "that's silly, there's no way that will happen here". Then the same happens wherever they are, which is similar to how people are responding to this. True, BSV has made itself a joke, but what happened to them can very well happen to anyone else, since as you've said, all PoW networks have this weakness and no one seems interested in addressing it. 
Topic: About the BSV 51% attack (Read 83 times)
So, BSV gets a 51% attack. Most of the hashing power was already coming from a TAAL, and other miners start leaving, making subsequent attacks easier. Then outsiders claim it can never happen to their blockchain of choice and that 51% attacks are not real. Am I understanding this correctly? Is this not kind of like socialism? Shouldn't we take this as a warning to take this more seriously?
Bitcoin? its hard to do the 51% attack because no one can control the hashrate.
But for altcoins such as BSV, it's easy and it has been proven, not sure who the outsiders that claim that it can never happen to any bitcoin fork coins. Because they are really open and prone for this kind of attacks because the network is not that secure. I think they take it seriously, but the problem is that it is cheap to pull this kind of attacks unlike bitcoin wherein the entity will have to spend millions if not billions.
wdym by socialism? that a user can own more than 51% of the hash power? i think nearly all pow network has that weakness. i don't understand how it is socialism anyway, doesn't this mean that anyone can participate instead?
How does something as large as "Bitcoin" SV manage to have a 51% attack occur a decade plus after its inception given there are already ?? 75% ?? of the coins in circulation? If the ask price Vs quantity available values are correct, then that's some serious dollars that have been sunk into acquiring ownership of the coin itself.
Then what?
Then what?
Security of altcoin networks are bad if you see their network hashrates that are too small. With too small hashrates, their networks can easily be attacked with low cost.
Well, yeah which is kind of my point and even then, if think about it one or two million to attack Bitcoin or Ethereum may be a trivial amount, seeing as how things are moving towards centralization more and more. 
Shouldn't we take this as a warning to take this more seriously?
Security of altcoin networks are bad if you see their network hashrates that are too small. With too small hashrates, their networks can easily be attacked with low cost.https://www.crypto51.app/
Do you see how cheap the cost for 1 hour attack is? $4,800 for 1 hour attack with estimated cost from NiceHash service cost.
Quote
Name Symbol Market Cap Algorithm Hash Rate 1h Attack Cost NiceHash-able
BitcoinSV BSV $2.63 B SHA-256 339 PH/s $4,805 138%
BitcoinSV BSV $2.63 B SHA-256 339 PH/s $4,805 138%
So, BSV gets a 51% attack. Most of the hashing power was already coming from a TAAL, and other miners start leaving, making subsequent attacks easier. Then outsiders claim it can never happen to their blockchain of choice and that 51% attacks are not real. Am I understanding this correctly? Is this not kind of like socialism? Shouldn't we take this as a warning to take this more seriously?
Jump to: