Topic: What is the real risk of a 51% attack? (Read 2648 times)

Yes, some of them collude, I have no doubt about that, after all that's what corporatism is. But I don't think they purposefully scheme to achieve certain outcomes. Fort instance I don't think they made plans to bring about a housing bubble and then pop it..

yes and mostly no.  the thoughts of all the bankster CEO's pulling up in their limousines to the their meeting place (can't remember the exact building) in Manhattan to plan their own rescue during the depths of the fin crisis in 2008 belie your claims.  i cannot imagine any other scenario than them plotting to dump their bad loans onto the Fed and Treasury.  also the Libor scam required widespread collusion amongst the banks setting that rate.  Geithner, Paulson, and Bernanke speaking with Blankfein and Dimon dozens of times in 2008 about bailouts smacks of collusion as well.  how about CB interest rate collusion?  AIG?  Not to mention the revolving door policies.

all in all, the evidence speaks to widespread cooperation amongst key players.

I agree with Melbustus. Those psychopaths are merely individually trying to have an easy life by stealing from the rest and stomping on anyone who dares oppose them which includes each other. It just so happens that sometimes they work in sync or give each other motives to repeat certain actions which creates only an illusion that they're all working together.

Plus, it's an election year so they're busy 

You've obviously never worked for the federal government, or else you wouldn't have such a high opinion of their capabilities.

Even if they could effectively deploy all these resources you're talking about the act of correctly perceiving the threat and the means necessary to combat it represent a competence that goes far beyond that which the institution is capable.

Either take a Xanax, or listen to this Cypherpunk'd episode with a replay of an panel with Phillip R. Zimmerman and other cypherpunks.

About two decades ago, Philip R. Zimmerman and other cypherpunks were continuously being asked by the press and at business meetings about what the government would do to them when the day came it would crack down on their efforts to get cryptography software (PGP) into the parts of the world where it was badly needed.

Ends up, Philip says, the government never even contacted them.

 - http://www.bitcoinmoney.com/post/6136537609
 - http://library.agoristradio.com/library/cypherpunkd/cypherpunkd-EP039.mp3

bittorent is pretty much illegal too, still seems to work fine.....

Hear me now, believe me later... as soon as Bitcoin gets traction the US Government will attack it with whatever resources they have.  They'll use BS excuses like the war on terror, child pornography, money laundering, or whatever boogie man they can come up with.

They'll make it illegal (just like they did Gold).  They'll create stiff penalties for anyone caught with Bitcoin clients (just like they threatened with Gold holders).  

When all that doesn't work, they will attack the system with their vast computer resources.

I think it would be completely shortsighted and naive to think the Federal Reserve and other central banks around the world will watch their monopoly go down the tubes without deploying every weapon in their arsenal to protect their interests.

...We are dealing with the most wealthy, powerful, and soulless individuals existing on the planet to date, with near infinite financial and military resources at their disposal.  

Having said that, I'm accumulating Bitcoins, and will continue to do so, especially if they get cheap because they are made illegal or the system is attacked.

I believe the decentralized architecture of the system is going to be damn hard for any government to take down.

Not to mention the sheer demand for it as fiat currencies are devalued at ever greater speeds.

Nothing has legs like an idea who's time has come.... I'm betting big Bitcoin's time has come, regardless of what any central banker may try to do about it.

Alright, I'll step down off my soap box...

I certainly think it's an insidious system with nasty feedback loops that incentivize politicians to promise the world to a largely unsuspecting/uneducated electorate in order to get re-elected, and that the Fed and debt-issuance is the vehicle that allows this, etc... And the primary-dealer banks clearly have a super-advantageous position in all this.

But I do not think the channels are anywhere near as deliberate/intended/meticulously-designed as you imply. You are, frankly, giving government (Fed and NSA counts) too much credit.

As far as the 51% attack, assurance that it is even less likely to occur could very well be coming in a short amount of time:

From the Bitcoin wiki:


 - http://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Mining_hardware_comparison#ASICs

Government is not what concerns me.  It's the central banks that run and control those governments that concerns me.  And if you don't believe the Federal Reserve tells Congress what to do perhaps you should reference a few of the chairman's himself quotes when asked where the bailout money went.

Wake up, the US Government is bought and paid for by the bankers.  It would be naive to think they wouldn't use that asset to protect their interests.

You forgot the .


Government is not the efficient, scheming, effective, beast that you imply it is. Don't get me wrong - it is certainly a beast....just not one that operates anywhere near as well as would be required for the Federal Reserve to somehow direct the NSA to attack bitcoin. That's pretty laughable if you've ever spent time in/around government or the higher-ups in said agencies.


Edit: didn't mean to dismiss your greater point, though, that bitcoin should ideally be robust enough to thwart well-funded attacks...

NSA will eventually use their computing power to attack Bitcoin.  You have to know this is a fata complete.  It's only a matter of time before Bitcoin is public enemy #1 to every parasitic central bank out there.  (And who do you think NSA takes their orders from?)

We really need to plan for such attacks and make the system robust enough to handle anything thrown at it.

Proof of Stake is one proposal for that.https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Proof_of_Stake

Bitcoin Plus

Sounds neat.  How do they operate then?  Some kind of random number-based thing or something?

It would destroy Bitcoin. It would, however, be a huge boost to alternate crypto-currencies that don't use computing power to solve the double spend problem.

The value would instantly drop to $0.01 on every exchange as everyone jumps ship like the titanic so unless they're the first to put in a massive sell order (which is possible), they'd just kill the currency and make nothing off it.

By the way, it's not 51% as 50.01% would do it, as would 50.000001%.  The correct terminology would be >50% (greater than 50%)

At this moment in time, there are 2 things that could cause it.  First, there aren't enough GPUs to do it right now.  I mean there are but it'd take soooo many people/computers that it'd cost more money than they'd likely steal.

FPGA's are even more expensive in initial cost and I don't think the mine-able supply in the entire world would do it.

Possibility 1:
ASICs are fast as hell and nobody has them except one company that currently owns enough to beat the entire rest of the world by about 10-20%.  They'd need a hell of a lot of computers to run them and I don't think that that cost and effort = > $ than selling their products to people instead I don't think destroying BTC and thus their entire long term business plan is in their long term business plan either, lol.

Possibility 2:
That leaves a quantum computer.  There's like 1 working one or something and it can barely do math at the moment We're 5 years minimum from anyone producing one tailored to mining, complete with interface and programming instructions and everything.

Change the protocol, call it whatever you want. Bottom line is the government would be taking a big risk by trying a 51% attack. They would bring a massive amount of free press to Bitcoin, and ultimately fail to stop it.