4 ms·
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
by 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 agoSure, 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 agoThat 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 agoJust 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.