Topic: Is 51% attack a crime? (Read 253 times)
Why will anyone who successfully complete a 51% attack, not double-spend by reversing the block? this is a crime because of the losses that will be incurred by victims of the transactions. I was thinking they will take charge of the network cause lots of transactions to be unconfirmed like we saw in 2017 when bitcoin fee became very expensive.
51% attack will be so costly that only a government of a big country can pull this off to destroy BTC
Well it if costly for them why would they pulled that stunt? Doesn't make sense, also I don't think that the resources will be enough to go long term.
a 51% attack that double spends appears to violate the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act. i think even a mere censorship attack would qualify based on that legal theory.
whether it's enforceable is another matter. it carries a prison sentence of up to 10 years per count, and victims could sue for damages, but this is all theoretical. it's never been done, and the legal theory has never been tested in court. i assume the discovery process would be an absolute nightmare.
whether it's enforceable is another matter. it carries a prison sentence of up to 10 years per count, and victims could sue for damages, but this is all theoretical. it's never been done, and the legal theory has never been tested in court. i assume the discovery process would be an absolute nightmare.
I have big doubts that anyone would bother to investigate a censorship attack, the authorities wouldn't even clearly see who is the victim, who is the culprit, what was the damage, and Bitcoin is a decentralized network, not a company that can go to court. In case with double spend, there will be a clear victim - an exchange or other service that lost millions of dollars worth of coins, and the attacker that made and then reversed a transaction.
I agree, I don't think that any governing body will investigate 51% attack unless a country was really affected by it to consider this as an economic sabotage. Exchanges will surely be the victim here and might chase and sue the bad actors behind in the court in case of double spend.
For all intent and purposes, lets look at Bitcoin Gold Blockchain Hit by 51% Attack Leading to $70K Double Spend
a 51% attack that double spends appears to violate the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act. i think even a mere censorship attack would qualify based on that legal theory.
whether it's enforceable is another matter. it carries a prison sentence of up to 10 years per count, and victims could sue for damages, but this is all theoretical. it's never been done, and the legal theory has never been tested in court. i assume the discovery process would be an absolute nightmare.
whether it's enforceable is another matter. it carries a prison sentence of up to 10 years per count, and victims could sue for damages, but this is all theoretical. it's never been done, and the legal theory has never been tested in court. i assume the discovery process would be an absolute nightmare.
I have big doubts that anyone would bother to investigate a censorship attack, the authorities wouldn't even clearly see who is the victim, who is the culprit, what was the damage, and Bitcoin is a decentralized network, not a company that can go to court. In case with double spend, there will be a clear victim - an exchange or other service that lost millions of dollars worth of coins, and the attacker that made and then reversed a transaction.
Can somebody, after attacking BTC, mine all the BTC in an hour or so?
NoCan everyone become helpless to just stop their mining operations completely whenever such a situation arise?
NoWill somebody be even interested in making money from this or the sole intention would just be the destruction of BTC as well as the network, and to gain Monopoly and establish the rules of centralization in crypto world?
It's a f* up world, so yeah, there might be people interested in it.Yes this is correct. Looking at the total bitcoin currently in circulation as many as 18,339,725 BTC. If denominated in dollars, $ 130,393,610,777.50 at current prices. If counted 51% then there are around $ 66,500,741,496.3 or around 9,353,259.75 BTC. I think it is very difficult to bring down BTC, as long as special values and consensus are still trusted.
Hmm, you have something like 0.0051% of an idea what a 51% attack refers to, right?
It has nothing to do with price or currently mined coins, it's about the hashrate of the network.
a 51% attack that double spends appears to violate the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act. i think even a mere censorship attack would qualify based on that legal theory.
whether it's enforceable is another matter.
whether it's enforceable is another matter.
Since it's a US Act, good luck trying to use it, immediately after Missouri wins its case with China over the virus.
And who would be the culprit, an anonymous pool, the miners that provided the power?
The one that "hacked" or hacked the pool?
Even if caught, I have a feeling he will enjoy a lot of frappuccinos before getting two years in jail and then sightseeing around Tokyo, like the last guy that was in trouble over fraud.
A lot of the time it's to fuck exchanges so is there is a law in there somewhere that's fraud related? Though the actual attack itself may not be in that scenario but they're using it to carry out an intentional and malicious act that causes a financial loss. I'd be seriously impressed if someone who did it could ever be found but it's an interesting question.
a 51% attack that double spends appears to violate the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act. i think even a mere censorship attack would qualify based on that legal theory.
whether it's enforceable is another matter. it carries a prison sentence of up to 10 years per count, and victims could sue for damages, but this is all theoretical. it's never been done, and the legal theory has never been tested in court. i assume the discovery process would be an absolute nightmare.
whether it's enforceable is another matter. it carries a prison sentence of up to 10 years per count, and victims could sue for damages, but this is all theoretical. it's never been done, and the legal theory has never been tested in court. i assume the discovery process would be an absolute nightmare.
BTC is a decentralized network unprotected by such damages. I don't think there are laws in which miners and other people holding bitcoin are being protected by such direct attacks to the network, but if the courts rule this as economic sabotage or damage to properties or something along the lines, there is a possibility that the perpetrator of the attack to be tried or even put behind bars. But generally, there are no known laws concerning bitcoin and 51% attack in general. Heck, anyone can do it, but the resources needed to do it isn't a joke and is pretty much demanding on its own accord that it's not really worth doing it.
51% attack will be so costly that only a government of a big country can pull this off to destroy BTC
Yes this is correct. Looking at the total bitcoin currently in circulation as many as 18,339,725 BTC. If denominated in dollars, $ 130,393,610,777.50 at current prices. If counted 51% then there are around $ 66,500,741,496.3 or around 9,353,259.75 BTC. I think it is very difficult to bring down BTC, as long as special values and consensus are still trusted.Source: https://www.bitcoinblockhalf.com/
Will just focus on the main question "is 51% attack a crime? "
Well, the action of the attacker will not only affect the Bitcoin network, it will also affect lots of people. It'll take away their hard earned valuable coins.
The attacker could actually be punished by the law if caught and judged in a country with just law. Imagine a government not judging a confirmed thief or economic saboteur for whatever reason. That is not justice.
Well, the action of the attacker will not only affect the Bitcoin network, it will also affect lots of people. It'll take away their hard earned valuable coins.
The attacker could actually be punished by the law if caught and judged in a country with just law. Imagine a government not judging a confirmed thief or economic saboteur for whatever reason. That is not justice.
Many believe that 51% attack is not a crime, it's rather a good way for attacker to become little poorer. If he is stupid enough to spend millions of dollars to buy huge amounts of electrical energy, getting nothing in return then let him do that. On the other hand, the approach, which he uses to obtain that amount of electricity, might involve criminal activity. If attacker uses threats, murder, tortures, etc to convince miners play his game then it is becoming a pure crime.
51% attack will be so costly that only a government of a big country can pull this off to destroy BTC
Can somebody, after attacking BTC, mine all the BTC in an hour or so?
It's a common misconception to think that 51% attack gives the attackers some god-level powers over the network. 51% actually only allows attackers to revert transactions by forking the blockchain from the earlier block, they can choose to mine empty blocks to effectively DDOS the network, or they can choose to censor certain addresses by refusing to include their transactions and forking whenever other miners do so. 51% attack can't change the rules of the network or do anything that breaks the rules, period.
So, is it a crime? The censorship attack would be the most unlikely to prosecuted as a crime, the DDOS is generally a crime, but I doubt it would viewed like that by authorities, but the last one, the double spending would have very high chances to being prosecuted if it will result in millions of dollars worth of coins being stolen. Authorities already go after Bitcoin thieves, and double-spending is just a type of robbery.
Is printing more money a crime? Not if done by the central bank.
So, double spending should indeed be a crime. It's essentially counterfeit.
The only other reason to do a 51% attack would be to destroy the chain.
So, double spending should indeed be a crime. It's essentially counterfeit.
The only other reason to do a 51% attack would be to destroy the chain.
it depends on how you define the 51% attack.
if it is defined as only having higher amount of hashrate and reversing some blocks, then i don't see anything illegal in that. not to mention that it would be how the protocol is defined.
but if it is defined as making a large trade with someone and then using the hashrate to reverse that transaction and successfully double spend that, then it is a crime because by then there would be an individual who was directly damaged by the attacker's actions and since there was a trade (which needs to be in millions to justify the attack and such trades have some paperwork) they can sue that attacker.
none of it will kill or destroy bitcoin though.
if it is defined as only having higher amount of hashrate and reversing some blocks, then i don't see anything illegal in that. not to mention that it would be how the protocol is defined.
but if it is defined as making a large trade with someone and then using the hashrate to reverse that transaction and successfully double spend that, then it is a crime because by then there would be an individual who was directly damaged by the attacker's actions and since there was a trade (which needs to be in millions to justify the attack and such trades have some paperwork) they can sue that attacker.
none of it will kill or destroy bitcoin though.
I've been seeing so many debates about a 51% attack as well as its costs and everything else. Now, I'd like to ask this whether it should be considered a crime that is done to potentially harm / kill the network as well as destroy BTC?
It is a crime? categorically No. But the question is what incentives those actors will get after a 51%.Can somebody, after attacking BTC, mine all the BTC in an hour or so?
Do you mean double spend?
Can everyone become helpless to just stop their mining operations completely whenever such a situation arise?
Theoretically, yes, we can be helpless, let's say that the bad actors have 10 long and the normal and true blockchain is 9 long.
What if the attacker decides to pull out USDT against BTC and sends his coins to an exchange? Will the exchange accept the coins? Can he even make nay money by conducting such a highly expensive operation? Will somebody be even interested in making money from this or the sole intention would just be the destruction of BTC as well as the network, and to gain Monopoly and establish the rules of centralization in crypto world?
Exchanges specially with fast confirmations times are the first to be vulnerable to this kind of attacks. It could be the sole purpose is to disrupt the network and at the same time make money. However, it is not that easy, you need to have the hardware needed, labor, electricity of course. So this kind of attack is not sustainable in the long run, in my opinion.
A 51% attack may cause damage to the network but the attackers will not be able to get coins out of thin air.
It's similar to a denial of service attack. It can disrupt normal activity of the network but will not be beneficial for the attackers.
The cost of a 51% is way higher than the finanicial benifit for attackers. It will be a waste of resources that could be more profitable in mining with integrity.
It's hard to tell whether such an attack is legal or not since bitcoin is a decentralised system and not yet regulated in many countries.
It's similar to a denial of service attack. It can disrupt normal activity of the network but will not be beneficial for the attackers.
The cost of a 51% is way higher than the finanicial benifit for attackers. It will be a waste of resources that could be more profitable in mining with integrity.
It's hard to tell whether such an attack is legal or not since bitcoin is a decentralised system and not yet regulated in many countries.
I would personally say it's not a crime.
Most blockchains and their surrounding communities adhere to the principles of code is law. If the code allows people to subvert the network by gaining a majority of the hashrate, then so be it.
Worst case scenario, they'll re-org a few blocks and then there will be a chain split and they'll be free to do what they want with their forked chain.
Sure, people will lose money, but that's what they signed up to while using that coin.
Most blockchains and their surrounding communities adhere to the principles of code is law. If the code allows people to subvert the network by gaining a majority of the hashrate, then so be it.
Worst case scenario, they'll re-org a few blocks and then there will be a chain split and they'll be free to do what they want with their forked chain.
Sure, people will lose money, but that's what they signed up to while using that coin.
I've been seeing so many debates about a 51% attack as well as its costs and everything else. Now, I'd like to ask this whether it should be considered a crime that is done to potentially harm / kill the network as well as destroy BTC? Can somebody, after attacking BTC, mine all the BTC in an hour or so? Can everyone become helpless to just stop their mining operations completely whenever such a situation arise? What if the attacker decides to pull out USDT against BTC and sends his coins to an exchange? Will the exchange accept the coins? Can he even make nay money by conducting such a highly expensive operation? Will somebody be even interested in making money from this or the sole intention would just be the destruction of BTC as well as the network, and to gain Monopoly and establish the rules of centralization in crypto world?
Jump to: