10 ms·
the value of 51% is something I failed to understand , wouldn't the attack also works even the attacker has less than 50%, but bigger than any other individual
by hujun 9y ago
the value of 51% is something I failed to understand , wouldn't the attack also works even the attacker has less than 50%, but bigger than any other individual miner? for example if there are 3 miners in total, A has 40%, B and C has 30% each, wouldn't A still able to write a longer chain faster than B or C?
- wmf 9y agoA is working on one chain but B and C are working together on another chain, so the A chain has 40% and the B/C chain has 60%.
- hujun 9y ago"A is working on one chain but B and C are working together on another chain, so the A chain has 40% and the B/C chain has 60%." but if B and C are working together, it implies there is some sort of relationship between them so they could be coordinated together(e.g. owned by same org), this not the case I am trying to use here; my case is really 3 independent miners
- wmf 9y agoThe default behavior of Bitcoin is for all miners to cooperate even if they are independent.
- SirensOfTitan 9y agoIt would be in B and C's best interests to hash together to avoid A's attack. A well designed cryptocurrency takes these game theory scenarios into accounts and properly incentivizes mining wherein it should be more profitable for miners to accurately represent transaction history over destabilization. A in your scenario would likely be malicious to the network would have to be a state actor looking to kill the network. Luckily, in a sufficiently large network even governments are bound by CPU/GPU supply. It gets even harder for this kind of state maliciousness to take place in tech like ethereum: whose PoW function is both CPU and memory bound (I.e. You cannot use custom ASICs) I casually enjoy cryptocurrency, so anyone who knows better please correct me if you find me incorrect.