The danger is a big jump in mining tech, not what could be done with what's already out there. No current Govt agency or bank could care less about BTC, be assured of that. Would be painfully obvious otherwise.
But imagine a huge secret crop of ASICs, not advertised, not sold, just built and run. Such a venture could 51% the network for a total outlay of $40m-$60m.
Yes, it trashes its own ecosystem (for a while, anyway), but it would also make several million dollars short-term profit - and nobody would see it coming, nor be able to stop it.
Now think about this: ASICs are not the last word. The next gen of SHA-256 tech is already in production.
Topic: Th 51% issue. (Read 1205 times)
Is there anyway to keep bitcoin working correctly inspite of a 51+% malicious miner?
Is there anyway to prevent a well financed individual from getting 51+%?( i don't think so).
Is there anyway to prevent a well financed individual from getting 51+%?( i don't think so).
Y'know... this forum does have a search function...
Search? using a search function successfully is an art. I do ok on google, but forum searches? not so good.
Is there anyway to keep bitcoin working correctly inspite of a 51+% malicious miner?
Is there anyway to prevent a well financed individual from getting 51+%?( i don't think so).
Is there anyway to prevent a well financed individual from getting 51+%?( i don't think so).
Y'know... this forum does have a search function...
Search function can be frustrating when the results are "UTFSE"
Is there anyway to keep bitcoin working correctly inspite of a 51+% malicious miner?
Is there anyway to prevent a well financed individual from getting 51+%?( i don't think so).
Is there anyway to prevent a well financed individual from getting 51+%?( i don't think so).
Y'know... this forum does have a search function...
Wow the tinfoil in this thread is OP. Do you really think they would spend that kind of money to try and double spend fucking 3 btc? A 51% hack isnt the end of btc, its a minor inconvenience.
Hmm, why would they be limited to a 3 btc? why not do a 3000 btc double spend?
Wow the tinfoil in this thread is OP. Do you really think they would spend that kind of money to try and double spend fucking 3 btc? A 51% hack isnt the end of btc, its a minor inconvenience.
My understanding is that this is a real threat, with 51% and bad intentions someone could kill bitcoin. Now why is this a real threat, 2 reasons :
- with a quantum computer (2 in the world today with 512 qubits, price unknown, but it starts to get real)
- US government deciding to kill bitcoin could do that super easily with 0.01% of defense budget
I believe both have little chance to happen but potentially these are real threats, even more so as the market cap of bitcoins becomes bigger
- with a quantum computer (2 in the world today with 512 qubits, price unknown, but it starts to get real)
- US government deciding to kill bitcoin could do that super easily with 0.01% of defense budget
I believe both have little chance to happen but potentially these are real threats, even more so as the market cap of bitcoins becomes bigger
You have hit upon BTC's biggest flaw.
If the NSA (for example) wanted to kill BTC with a 51% attack, they could do so in a heartbeat. Thankfully, they really do have more important things to do. Bad guys do exist, and security agencies are staffed with real human beings who want to stop them.
Homeland citizens and their home-grown electronic trading cards? They're not going to take down an airliner any time soon.
But the NSA is not alone in commanding such computing power.
Under the mountains of Switzerland, there is a data-center facility for a major international finance institution. No big deal, you might say - there are hundreds of such data centers.
Except this one cost forty billion dollars. (Wrote that out, so you don't think it's a typo.)
Do the maths on what $40Bn of hardware could do to BTC, if it tried. It ain't pretty. Conclusion is reassuring though: they're clearly not trying.
But it's the 'next wave', the tech that will render ASICs obsolete within 2 years, that has the biggest risk for initiating a 51%. The lack of attention being paid to that particular (massive) risk factor is alarming.
If the NSA (for example) wanted to kill BTC with a 51% attack, they could do so in a heartbeat. Thankfully, they really do have more important things to do. Bad guys do exist, and security agencies are staffed with real human beings who want to stop them.
Homeland citizens and their home-grown electronic trading cards? They're not going to take down an airliner any time soon.
But the NSA is not alone in commanding such computing power.
Under the mountains of Switzerland, there is a data-center facility for a major international finance institution. No big deal, you might say - there are hundreds of such data centers.
Except this one cost forty billion dollars. (Wrote that out, so you don't think it's a typo.)
Do the maths on what $40Bn of hardware could do to BTC, if it tried. It ain't pretty. Conclusion is reassuring though: they're clearly not trying.
But it's the 'next wave', the tech that will render ASICs obsolete within 2 years, that has the biggest risk for initiating a 51%. The lack of attention being paid to that particular (massive) risk factor is alarming.
An ASIC in every home.
Right next to the shotgun. And nuclear reactor. And nuke.
An ASIC in every home.
Is there anyway to keep bitcoin working correctly inspite of a 51+% malicious miner?
Is there anyway to prevent a well financed individual from getting 51+%?( i don't think so).
Is there anyway to prevent a well financed individual from getting 51+%?( i don't think so).
I think the more the network grows, the harder it will become for an individual or small group to acquire that much power.
(I could be wrong, its just a guess)
Is there anyway to keep bitcoin working correctly inspite of a 51+% malicious miner?
Is there anyway to prevent a well financed individual from getting 51+%?( i don't think so).
Is there anyway to prevent a well financed individual from getting 51+%?( i don't think so).
Jump to: