3 ms·
You're assuming that didn't already happen. The majority of the supply was produced rather trivially for a measurably inexpensive amount of captial cost to min
by nosuchthing 9y ago
You're assuming that didn't already happen.
The majority of the supply was produced rather trivially for a measurably inexpensive amount of captial cost to mint it prior to 2015.
One could surmise the reason crypto isn't banned yet is because nation states have the resources to mine majority stake easily due to the majority supply being created in a short time frame.
- dlubarov 9y agoIt's possible that they acquired a majority of hash power when doing so was cheaper, but in order to maintain their majority, they would have had to invest several billion since then. See [1] which shows the growth of the overall network hash rate. I'm not saying it's unrealistic, just that it would be more expensive today than what the article says. [1] https://blockchain.info/charts/hash-rate?timespan=2years https://blockchain.info/charts/hash-rate?timespan=2years
- nosuchthing 9y ago51% is not necessary. A case study in censorship though the pools has proven this: https://steemit.com/ethereum/@dhumphrey/f2pool-manipulates-usd1-2-million-on-the-ethereum-blockchain-during-the-status-im-ico https://steemit.com/ethereum/@dhumphrey/f2pool-manipulates-u...
- dlubarov 9y ago51% is necessary to create viable forks with arbitrary lengths. What that mining pool did was much less harmful: they just censored other parties' transactions during an ICO. Unless a coordinated majority is censoring your transactions, you can't really be censored, your transactions will just be slightly delayed sometimes. Which is normally very harmless. The only problem here was a poorly run ICO, where prices were dependent on the order of transactions. That wouldn't be the case with e.g. a reverse Dutch auction similar to the process for Treasury bills.