What is the real risk of a 51% attack? - page 2.

FreeMoney

legendary

Activity: 1246

Merit: 1016

Strength in numbers

Quote from: dissipate on September 18, 2012, 05:27:14 PM

A first world government could launch a 51% attack on Bitcoin, but it would be quite pointless. The blockchain would just be reset back to before the attack happened and a patched client that rendered the 51% attack useless would be released.

This is wrong. A 'Bitcoin' that follows something besides the majority of the hashing power is not Bitcoin.

jgarzik

legendary

Activity: 1596

Merit: 1100

Blockchain data is validated by every P2P node, miner or not.

Thus, even a miner with 100% network power cannot rewrite basic rules that other users disagree with.

Etlase2

hero member

Activity: 798

Merit: 1000

Quote from: nameface on September 18, 2012, 06:07:28 PM

Quote from: dissipate on September 18, 2012, 05:27:14 PM

A first world government could launch a 51% attack on Bitcoin, but it would be quite pointless. The blockchain would just be reset back to before the attack happened and a patched client that rendered the 51% attack useless would be released.

Interesting... This makes me feel all warm and fuzzy inside. Is there any hardcore assessment of the risks/defenses?

It shouldn't give you the warm fuzzies because it's inaccurate. If a government wants to take the chain down, they ignore all other miners' blocks and refuse all transactions. This attack can't be "patched out", a completely different metric other than hashing power for the block chain must be devised.

There's no real hardcore assessment. Anyone willing to devote a couple million could probably accomplish it.

mcdett

full member

Activity: 157

Merit: 101

Quote from: nameface on September 18, 2012, 06:07:28 PM

Interesting... This makes me feel all warm and fuzzy inside. Is there any hardcore assessment of the risks/defenses?

I was in your shoes well over a year ago. Spend some time here, and truly understand the roots of this. An attack is possible, but improbable. Everything in life has risks... even bitcoin, but don't take my word for it. Come to your own conclusion. There are no quick ways to put your mind at ease, just your own knowledge can do that.

nameface

sr. member

Activity: 406

Merit: 250

Quote from: dissipate on September 18, 2012, 05:27:14 PM

A first world government could launch a 51% attack on Bitcoin, but it would be quite pointless. The blockchain would just be reset back to before the attack happened and a patched client that rendered the 51% attack useless would be released.

Interesting... This makes me feel all warm and fuzzy inside. Is there any hardcore assessment of the risks/defenses?

dissipate

sr. member

Activity: 288

Merit: 251

A first world government could launch a 51% attack on Bitcoin, but it would be quite pointless. The blockchain would just be reset back to before the attack happened and a patched client that rendered the 51% attack useless would be released.

greyhawk

hero member

Activity: 952

Merit: 1009

Quote from: Stephen Gornick on September 18, 2012, 05:12:52 PM

Quote from: nameface on September 18, 2012, 03:23:55 PM

If a rich private interest or government decided that this sort of attack was in their best interest, what's stopping them?

Another thing stopping them ... it wouldn't be easy, even for a nation state, to accomplish. It takes more than an blank check to make this happen -- 25 Thash/s of hashing hardware is just not readily available.

But it is. In a month. According to BFL at least.

We have currently activity of 21 Thash/s recorded at SIPA.

We have 22 confirmed preorders for 1 Thash/s BFL ASIC Minirigs on this board alone.

So should these things actually exist at one point - yeah, I know, it's funny but let's finish the thought - those 22 would represent more than all current hash power combined.

Now of course it's a given that these 22 would have to work together, but this is also doubly interesting. Because do we even now what exactly is running on these things?

Stephen Gornick

legendary

Activity: 2506

Merit: 1010

Quote from: nameface on September 18, 2012, 03:23:55 PM

If a rich private interest or government decided that this sort of attack was in their best interest, what's stopping them?

Well, for beginners, what might be stopping them is a motive. Why would this be in "their best interest"?

Another thing stopping them ... it wouldn't be easy, even for a nation state, to accomplish. It takes more than an blank check to make this happen -- 25 Thash/s of hashing hardware is just not readily available. Maybe when multiple ASIC vendors are duking it out there will be excess capacity available to this hypothetical attacker, but today it would be noticeable.

And if your government claims it has to cut back on school supplies for teachers, for instance, is spending tens of millions of dollars going after a cryptocurrency really the best use of funds which come only from current and future taxpayers?

But as far as technically being possible, yes, yes it is technically possible. A lot of things are technically possible, but the reason they don't happen is there is no economic benefit to doing so. As is the situation here.

justusranvier

legendary

Activity: 1400

Merit: 1013

Quote from: nameface on September 18, 2012, 03:23:55 PM

I've heard that a network of miners large enough to represent 51% of the total hashing power of the entire network could push through false transactions and corrupt the blockchain.

An attacker with suitable computing power could 1) prevent new transactions from being confirmed immedately. 2) rewrite history to delete transactions.

That being said the amount of computing power needed, especially for 2), is unlikely to ever be possessed by a single entity and getting less likely all the time.

FreeMoney

legendary

Activity: 1246

Merit: 1016

Strength in numbers

No one can ever 'push a false transaction' regardless of power, we all can and do instantly recognize and dismiss that. What a 50%+ attacker could do is undo some of their spends and re-spend them. Or they could refuse to put transactions in their blocks. Anyone can refuse to put any tx in their block, but it only matters much if someone is able to make all the blocks. 50%+ means you can make all the blocks because you can build your own longer chain.

The only 'defense' imo is to find automated ways to watch for hokey stuff like a fork from previous block and stop automated bitcoin systems (or maybe all) until you know wth is going on.

Come-from-Beyond

legendary

Activity: 2142

Merit: 1010

Newbie

The blockchain won't be corrupted, just forked. And there are no viable defenses except trusted nodes concept.

nameface

sr. member

Activity: 406

Merit: 250

I've heard that a network of miners large enough to represent 51% of the total hashing power of the entire network could push through false transactions and corrupt the blockchain.

Is this a real threat? Are there defenses against this?

If a rich private interest or government decided that this sort of attack was in their best interest, what's stopping them?

Topic: What is the real risk of a 51% attack? - page 2. (Read 2648 times)