4 ms·

Is this really accurate? So 51% attack on bitcoin is around 100btc? Given the advantage of such an attack, won't more users want to do it? Also, won't nation st

Is this really accurate? So 51% attack on bitcoin is around 100btc? Given the advantage of such an attack, won't more users want to do it? Also, won't nation states easily come in on this and attack the integrity of these coins?

xur17 8y ago
This is the theoretical cost of a 51% attack if there is enough hashing power available via NiceHash. If the Nicehash-able column is >> 100%, this is very do-able. I go into more detail on the about page [0]. [0] https://www.crypto51.app/about.html https://www.crypto51.app/about.html
makomk 8y ago
This isn't possible for larger coins like Bitcoin because it assumes you can get a short-term rent of enough hardware to carry out the attack for exactly the amount of time it takes to carry out at the NiceHash market rate. Most of the Bitcoin mining hardware is not available for rent in this way and its owners have a financial incentive not to allow this because it'll wipe out the value of their hardware.
- sorokod 8y ago
  and its owners have a financial incentive not to allow this because it'll wipe out the value of their hardware. Well they don't have to be on the receiving end of the attack. They can be, you know, on the other end.
  - makomk 8y ago
    Sure, the owners of the mining hardware could be on the other end, but that puts up the cost of the attack substantially - instead of depending on the cost of renting an hour's mining time, it now depends on the total lifetime value of the equipment used. There's also the rather large problem of how they could convert enough double-spent Bitcoins to something else before the price tanks; it'd have to be a very big heist to make the math work out.
    - sorokod 8y ago
      That is true. However it may be the case that a third party holds "owners of the mining hardware" by the proverbial or actual balls. Then the calculus changes.
    - AlexCoventry 8y ago
      Just tanking the price is enough, if you've sold enough bitcoin futures beforehand. I suppose that would put you on the CFTC's radar, though.

xur17 8y ago

This is the theoretical cost of a 51% attack if there is enough hashing power available via NiceHash. If the Nicehash-able column is >> 100%, this is very do-able. I go into more detail on the about page [0]. [0] https://www.crypto51.app/about.html https://www.crypto51.app/about.html

makomk 8y ago

This isn't possible for larger coins like Bitcoin because it assumes you can get a short-term rent of enough hardware to carry out the attack for exactly the amount of time it takes to carry out at the NiceHash market rate. Most of the Bitcoin mining hardware is not available for rent in this way and its owners have a financial incentive not to allow this because it'll wipe out the value of their hardware.

sorokod 8y ago
and its owners have a financial incentive not to allow this because it'll wipe out the value of their hardware. Well they don't have to be on the receiving end of the attack. They can be, you know, on the other end.
- makomk 8y ago
  Sure, the owners of the mining hardware could be on the other end, but that puts up the cost of the attack substantially - instead of depending on the cost of renting an hour's mining time, it now depends on the total lifetime value of the equipment used. There's also the rather large problem of how they could convert enough double-spent Bitcoins to something else before the price tanks; it'd have to be a very big heist to make the math work out.
  - sorokod 8y ago
    That is true. However it may be the case that a third party holds "owners of the mining hardware" by the proverbial or actual balls. Then the calculus changes.
  - AlexCoventry 8y ago
    Just tanking the price is enough, if you've sold enough bitcoin futures beforehand. I suppose that would put you on the CFTC's radar, though.