Topic: How much would it cost right now to attain 50% of the network? - page 2. (Read 5023 times)
~$2million is relatively nothing when you consider that ~$400,000 trades hands on mtgox every day.
I don't think he was referring to someone getting 50% of the mining power purely with the intention of mining legitimate coins. I think he was referring to the possibility of gaining > 50% of the network in order to change the code in a way that would destroy bitcoin. Having the >50% allows the intruder's "version" of the software to appear to be the "legitimate" software.
My point is that the bitcoin enthusiasts would see the switch and alert the community, so that the 50% control would amount to no more than a giant waste of resources.
My point is that the bitcoin enthusiasts would see the switch and alert the community, so that the 50% control would amount to no more than a giant waste of resources.
Agreed.... except the alert part, but I'll swing back to that...
Running with a 2 THash/sec network size, gaining over 50% of this would require over 1 THash/sec of power... lets say 1.25 THash/sec just to "play it safe" from the attacker's point of view.
Building a rig similar to Whitepixel http://blog.zorinaq.com/?e=42, each rig would cost $2,700 USD. Each rig has four Radeon HD 5970. The hardware comparison chart (https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Mining_hardware_comparison) lists these cards of capable of 807 MHash/sec each. Each rig would therefore be capable of 3,228 MHash/sec.
Target (1.25 THash/sec) = 1,310,720 MHash/sec.
1,310,720 / 3,228 = 407 machines
407 * $2,700 USD = $1,098,900 USD.
So, with just slightly more than $1 million dollars you could acquire just slightly more than half of the current network.
Now, as far as the community noticing... why would they? Bitcoin is anonymous after all. And, as long as all 407 of those boxes weren't brought online at the same time, their presence could be masked as "normal network growth".
Ah, crud, I just realized my math was wrong...
Adding 1 THash/sec to a 2THash/sec network only gains you 1/3 of the new network size. You'd need over 2THash/sec, so that when you added it to the existing 2Thash/sec network you had over 1/2 of the total network.
Just double all my numbers... so it looks like it would cost over $2 million USD (and raising each day) to gain 1/2 of the network.
I don't think he was referring to someone getting 50% of the mining power purely with the intention of mining legitimate coins. I think he was referring to the possibility of gaining > 50% of the network in order to change the code in a way that would destroy bitcoin. Having the >50% allows the intruder's "version" of the software to appear to be the "legitimate" software.
My point is that the bitcoin enthusiasts would see the switch and alert the community, so that the 50% control would amount to no more than a giant waste of resources.
My point is that the bitcoin enthusiasts would see the switch and alert the community, so that the 50% control would amount to no more than a giant waste of resources.
Agreed.... except the alert part, but I'll swing back to that...
Running with a 2 THash/sec network size, gaining over 50% of this would require over 1 THash/sec of power... lets say 1.25 THash/sec just to "play it safe" from the attacker's point of view.
Building a rig similar to Whitepixel http://blog.zorinaq.com/?e=42, each rig would cost $2,700 USD. Each rig has four Radeon HD 5970. The hardware comparison chart (https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Mining_hardware_comparison) lists these cards of capable of 807 MHash/sec each. Each rig would therefore be capable of 3,228 MHash/sec.
Target (1.25 THash/sec) = 1,310,720 MHash/sec.
1,310,720 / 3,228 = 407 machines
407 * $2,700 USD = $1,098,900 USD.
So, with just slightly more than $1 million dollars you could acquire just slightly more than half of the current network.
Now, as far as the community noticing... why would they? Bitcoin is anonymous after all. And, as long as all 407 of those boxes weren't brought online at the same time, their presence could be masked as "normal network growth".
Who says the BTC generated can't be legit? If a user/organization has the resources to generate a massive amount of BTC and keep them out of circulation then it would drive the difficulty of generating coins for everyone else through the roof. The profitability of mining would go way down unless they have access to ASICS/FPGAs dedicated to the task.
I don't think he was referring to someone getting 50% of the mining power purely with the intention of mining legitimate coins. I think he was referring to the possibility of gaining > 50% of the network in order to change the code in a way that would destroy bitcoin. Having the >50% allows the intruder's "version" of the software to appear to be the "legitimate" software.
My point is that the bitcoin enthusiasts would see the switch and alert the community, so that the 50% control would amount to no more than a giant waste of resources.
My point is that the bitcoin enthusiasts would see the switch and alert the community, so that the 50% control would amount to no more than a giant waste of resources.
To match the current nearly 2 TH/s of the network, you'd probably find it cheapest and most energy efficient to develop an ASIC. Development costs are quite wide-ranging but always high. Then you could have a large pile of ASICs submerged in refrigerated oil and overclock to the moon. Since ASICs involve relatively low marginal costs, why stop at 2 TH/s when you can have 10 TH/s for maybe an additional 1% of your fixed costs. Even so, the point that has been made many times on these forums is that even if you had a massive rig that could do 10 TH/s, all you'd be able to do is to double-spend (and on average, less than 90% of the time). You might find better use for those ASICs in, *gasp*, legitimately mining at a rate of nearly 6000 BTC per day (at current difficulty).
Alternately, if your goal is to simply bring down the network, with a reasonably sized botnet, you could easily DDOS every client on IRC, plus each of the failovers included in the source code.
Alternately, if your goal is to simply bring down the network, with a reasonably sized botnet, you could easily DDOS every client on IRC, plus each of the failovers included in the source code.
I'm still a noob... but my understanding is that having 50% of the network processing power is a necessary but not sufficient condition to "take over" bitcoin.
If such a large player were to come in and do that, wouldn't all the devotees who peer at the code incessantly see quickly that it'd been tampered with and the community at large would learn of this in short order. Then people would abandon the "new" taken over network and revert to the old "correct" version and the millions or billions spent in pursuit of takeover would become a complete waste.
Do I have it correct or is noob tattooed on my face?
If such a large player were to come in and do that, wouldn't all the devotees who peer at the code incessantly see quickly that it'd been tampered with and the community at large would learn of this in short order. Then people would abandon the "new" taken over network and revert to the old "correct" version and the millions or billions spent in pursuit of takeover would become a complete waste.
Do I have it correct or is noob tattooed on my face?
False, abandoning it wouldn't be the way to go. Neither would 'changing the code' in any substantive manner at least (this would be akin to printing more fiat currency)
The network would auto adjust the difficulty. It would be up to people as to weather or not they wanted to leave and start a competing currency.
All in all, it would only make the network stronger IMHO. Not only would someone have a large vested interest in it then, but with that interest they would bring legal backing to the table and hopefully establish a decent precedent for competing currencies. Of course this is putting WAY too much faith into the justice system of whichever country that happens in but . . . .that's another problem altogether.
I'm still a noob... but my understanding is that having 50% of the network processing power is a necessary but not sufficient condition to "take over" bitcoin.
If such a large player were to come in and do that, wouldn't all the devotees who peer at the code incessantly see quickly that it'd been tampered with and the community at large would learn of this in short order. Then people would abandon the "new" taken over network and revert to the old "correct" version and the millions or billions spent in pursuit of takeover would become a complete waste.
Do I have it correct or is noob tattooed on my face?
If such a large player were to come in and do that, wouldn't all the devotees who peer at the code incessantly see quickly that it'd been tampered with and the community at large would learn of this in short order. Then people would abandon the "new" taken over network and revert to the old "correct" version and the millions or billions spent in pursuit of takeover would become a complete waste.
Do I have it correct or is noob tattooed on my face?
Let's say you just keep buying FPGAs or GPUs until you have over 50% of the network and can dominate it.
How many millions would it cost right now?
I'm curious just how rich you'd have to be to take over bitcoin.
Could you do it with $10 million as a small business owner?
Could a hedge fund CEO do it with $100 million?
Could Zuckerberg do it with $1 billion?
Could the NSA or DOD do it with $10 billion?
How about the Chinese government?
Basically, how many people in the world have the power to fuck over bitcoin if they wanted to?
How many millions would it cost right now?
I'm curious just how rich you'd have to be to take over bitcoin.
Could you do it with $10 million as a small business owner?
Could a hedge fund CEO do it with $100 million?
Could Zuckerberg do it with $1 billion?
Could the NSA or DOD do it with $10 billion?
How about the Chinese government?
Basically, how many people in the world have the power to fuck over bitcoin if they wanted to?
Jump to: