11 ms·
If any group controlled >50% of the network and also was willing to use that power in a way that would diminish trust in that same network then they'd very quic
by wan23 9y ago
If any group controlled >50% of the network and also was willing to use that power in a way that would diminish trust in that same network then they'd very quickly end up with 100% of something worthless.
- kevingadd 9y agoThis seems to imply that everyone else's stake in the network would become worthless too, though. What stops a particularly motivated billionaire from buying 51% compute for a month or so to destroy a cryptocurrency for good? They waste that money but any competitor of theirs (in business, etc) who had wealth tied up in that currency can kiss it goodbye. If a business was built around that currency it's dead now. The 'diminish trust in the network' threat really only discourages an existing good actor (invested in the network) from turning into a bad actor. If I've been mining a cryptocurrency for years and I decide I want to move on to mining something else, what stops me from using 51% to destroy the currency before I move on to mining something else? If I moved my currency holdings out (or have been liquidating them regularly, as any sensible miner might), what's to lose?
- prostoalex 9y agoThey still own a bunch of hardware, though, which can be repurposed for other networks. If you're a big miner, and something on whattomine.com seems attractive, you'd join the network, mine it, unload via exchanges and leave for greener pastures once the ROI is not that attractive.
- jjrh 9y agoThat implies there is a viable alternative people can go to. I'd be more concerned that a group with >50% would go after alternatives/competitors.