3 ms·
Someone made a comment the other day stating that a 50%+1 attack is more and more likely as it's becoming only a handful of people doing the mining.
by loceng 6y ago
Someone made a comment the other day stating that a 50%+1 attack is more and more likely as it's becoming only a handful of people doing the mining.
- xiphias2 6y agoI'm more worried about the concentration of miners in China than the miners themselves. For them it's not worth it to try the attack. But for China it may be worth to do it if too much Bitcoin is concentrated in American people's hands.
- loceng 6y agoI'd rather you switch your language slightly to state that it'd be the CCP who could easily force the concentration of miners in China to do bad actions; afaik the CCP allows mining to occur in China but not for the Chinese to own Bitcoin?
- jki275 6y agoThat's technically true. But. A 50% attack has the problem that an attacker with enough hash power to do it has enough hash power to simply mine on chain legitimately and create blocks and get 50% of the block reward and make tons of money that way, while actually doing the attack decreases confidence in the chain and might end up with massive losses in price.
- pjerem 6y agoYour point makes sense if your goal is making money. If what you want is more power over the global economy. As a government, you may have more interest, say, in stopping Tesla rise (if you consider that making BTC a 0.1$ asset would harm them) than making some "tons of money".