5 ms·

This is not a real concern once the hashing power of the network reaches a sufficiently high level. > Maybe people will realize that this is not a foolproof so

by CoryG89 10y ago

This is not a real concern once the hashing power of the network reaches a sufficiently high level. > Maybe people will realize that this is not a foolproof solution and that it can "easily" (you only need computing power, a.k.a money) be beaten. This same argument can be leveled against just about any form of cryptography. With enough computing power you can decrypt anything. No cryptography is perfect, it can only be strong.

Nursie 10y ago
Eh, no. Enough computing power in this case (even in the case of bitcoin) is significantly less than the amount of computing power that exists today. For a lot of crypto the amount is magnitudes larger, and working for thousands (or millions) of years to break it. I agree that the 51% attack is unlikely on BTC now, but it doesn't bear comparison to (for instance) brute forcing an AES-GCM message...
- CoryG89 10y ago
  I agree that currently it may not be the same as brute forcing something like an AES-GCM, but that isn't my point. My point is just that, if you have a blockchain with sufficiently high (and distributed) hash power (relative to the amount of computing power any individual actor/group can obtain), then in theory, you start being able to make strong guarantees about consensus.
bleuarff 10y ago
I agree in principles, but there's a difference. A system able to break a strong encryption could cost more than the world GDP and is not reallistically feasible, while owning 51% of bitcoin power is possible - not cheap, but possible.
- CoryG89 10y ago
  Right, I agree. The theory is sound though. Theoretically, there could be a quantum computing breakthrough (however unlikely) which would break some traditional crypto which was previously deemed impossible. It is the same with blockchains. It is just that there isn't one that exists (yet) which has enough distributed hash power where it's infeasible for any actor/group to ever get 51%. Bitcoin is just the best example so far, some might argue it's still in its early stages, or that another blockchains will surpass it.

by CoryG89 10y ago

Nursie 10y ago

Eh, no. Enough computing power in this case (even in the case of bitcoin) is significantly less than the amount of computing power that exists today. For a lot of crypto the amount is magnitudes larger, and working for thousands (or millions) of years to break it. I agree that the 51% attack is unlikely on BTC now, but it doesn't bear comparison to (for instance) brute forcing an AES-GCM message...

CoryG89 10y ago
I agree that currently it may not be the same as brute forcing something like an AES-GCM, but that isn't my point. My point is just that, if you have a blockchain with sufficiently high (and distributed) hash power (relative to the amount of computing power any individual actor/group can obtain), then in theory, you start being able to make strong guarantees about consensus.

bleuarff 10y ago

I agree in principles, but there's a difference. A system able to break a strong encryption could cost more than the world GDP and is not reallistically feasible, while owning 51% of bitcoin power is possible - not cheap, but possible.

CoryG89 10y ago
Right, I agree. The theory is sound though. Theoretically, there could be a quantum computing breakthrough (however unlikely) which would break some traditional crypto which was previously deemed impossible. It is the same with blockchains. It is just that there isn't one that exists (yet) which has enough distributed hash power where it's infeasible for any actor/group to ever get 51%. Bitcoin is just the best example so far, some might argue it's still in its early stages, or that another blockchains will surpass it.