3 ms·

Under normal free market assumptions, the cost of double spending is simply the expected reward of each block multiplied by the number of blocks that need to be

Under normal free market assumptions, the cost of double spending is simply the expected reward of each block multiplied by the number of blocks that need to be mined. For bitcoin, where the reward for finding a block is currently ~$100,000, that means you should be able to double spend by mining 6 blocks at a cost of less than a million dollars. The question is: are bitcoin miners subject to the usual free market assumptions? If someone offered you double the market rate to hire a bitcoin miner for an hour would you accept that offer or not?

rwcarlsen 8y ago
The math doesn't work that way because honest miners amortize the capital cost of their specialized equipment over long periods of time. An attacker undermines the network's value and so must operate on shorter timescales. The capital costs of an attack could perhaps be partially recovered via resale, but getting order ~50% of the existing network's specialized hardware might prove prohibitively difficult even given sufficient capital. [edit] And renting existing miners' equipment would be difficult because you would have to: figure out who they are, convince them to point their equipment to your pool, run your own dark pool servers to handle data from tons of miners, run infrastructure to make payouts to these miners, hope that exchanges don't have reorg procedures that prevent you from accomplishing your double spend, hope your chain reorg doesn't panic the market for long enough for you to double spend exchange to another coin that won't be tanking (due to the reorg).
Taek 8y ago
As a miner, you are likely not going to accept because your entire revenue stream comes from the cryptocurrency being stable. If someone uses your hashrate to launch an attack, it's a direct threat to your future revenue especially if the attack discredits the security of the token you mine. In this case though, Bitcoin Gold shares a hashing algorithm (Equihash) with many other blockchains. It is possible that some Zcash mining farm decided to attack Bitcoin Gold because they felt the revenue from attacking Bitcoin Gold was greater than the potential damage to their income, which is primarily Zcash based. I'm just grasping at straws here, but generally speaking it's a bad idea to share hashing algorithms with another cryptocurrency, especially if that cryptocurrency is substantially more valuable (in terms of monthly block reward) than your own. And, all GPU-mined coins are essentially sharing one algorithm, because the hardware can jump between them easily. So all GPU based coins share this vulnerability, where the tiny GPU mined coins could easily be attacked or wiped out by a large Ethereum farm at any point.

rwcarlsen 8y ago

The math doesn't work that way because honest miners amortize the capital cost of their specialized equipment over long periods of time. An attacker undermines the network's value and so must operate on shorter timescales. The capital costs of an attack could perhaps be partially recovered via resale, but getting order ~50% of the existing network's specialized hardware might prove prohibitively difficult even given sufficient capital. [edit] And renting existing miners' equipment would be difficult because you would have to: figure out who they are, convince them to point their equipment to your pool, run your own dark pool servers to handle data from tons of miners, run infrastructure to make payouts to these miners, hope that exchanges don't have reorg procedures that prevent you from accomplishing your double spend, hope your chain reorg doesn't panic the market for long enough for you to double spend exchange to another coin that won't be tanking (due to the reorg).

Taek 8y ago

As a miner, you are likely not going to accept because your entire revenue stream comes from the cryptocurrency being stable. If someone uses your hashrate to launch an attack, it's a direct threat to your future revenue especially if the attack discredits the security of the token you mine. In this case though, Bitcoin Gold shares a hashing algorithm (Equihash) with many other blockchains. It is possible that some Zcash mining farm decided to attack Bitcoin Gold because they felt the revenue from attacking Bitcoin Gold was greater than the potential damage to their income, which is primarily Zcash based. I'm just grasping at straws here, but generally speaking it's a bad idea to share hashing algorithms with another cryptocurrency, especially if that cryptocurrency is substantially more valuable (in terms of monthly block reward) than your own. And, all GPU-mined coins are essentially sharing one algorithm, because the hardware can jump between them easily. So all GPU based coins share this vulnerability, where the tiny GPU mined coins could easily be attacked or wiped out by a large Ethereum farm at any point.