3 ms·

This is why you would build a mining pool or multiple pools They pay for themself and by the time the miners notice the abuse its too late. You could probably

by noxer 5y ago

This is why you would build a mining pool or multiple pools They pay for themself and by the time the miners notice the abuse its too late. You could probably create a pool that grows rather fast if you simply pay more than others this would be possible by not generating any profit form the pool or worst case you could pay on top. far more likely is a scenario where an existing pool owner or a few collude and pull this off as "exist scam". A crypto winter where the price of BTC drops below the mining cost would be the perfect situation. low hash rate. price of BTC down so not many people shorting and mining hardware cheap form all the miners who went bankrupt. Once a miner/pool has 51% it would eventually make financial sense to kill BTC for a final huge profit rather than slowly going bankrupt as well.

Majromax 5y ago
Perhaps the only reason a hedge fund hasn't tried this yet is the unclear legal status of doing so. One law blog (https://restislaw.com/liability-51-attacks-cfaa/ https://restislaw.com/liability-51-attacks-cfaa/) argues that a 51% attack would violate the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, but that blog does not take into account the recent Supreme Court decision limiting its application. It might also be considered market manipulation to take out a short position on a bitcoin-linked fund or company (like Microstrategy) and then take actions with the intention of changing the price of Bitcoin. That could add enough legal risk to make a hedge fund think twice. I doubt a hedge fund could build a sufficient short position on unregulated DeFi networks, either, especially since blowing up Bitcoin would likely break the peg on at least Tether. Still, this would seem to leave Bitcoin in an uncomfortable spot: the only reason the "free from government" currency continues to exist may be regulations by those selfsame governments.
- noxer 5y ago
  Far more likely this would be done by "criminals" and they dont care about the law especially the law on the other side of the globe.

by noxer 5y ago

Majromax 5y ago

Perhaps the only reason a hedge fund hasn't tried this yet is the unclear legal status of doing so. One law blog (https://restislaw.com/liability-51-attacks-cfaa/ https://restislaw.com/liability-51-attacks-cfaa/) argues that a 51% attack would violate the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, but that blog does not take into account the recent Supreme Court decision limiting its application. It might also be considered market manipulation to take out a short position on a bitcoin-linked fund or company (like Microstrategy) and then take actions with the intention of changing the price of Bitcoin. That could add enough legal risk to make a hedge fund think twice. I doubt a hedge fund could build a sufficient short position on unregulated DeFi networks, either, especially since blowing up Bitcoin would likely break the peg on at least Tether. Still, this would seem to leave Bitcoin in an uncomfortable spot: the only reason the "free from government" currency continues to exist may be regulations by those selfsame governments.

noxer 5y ago
Far more likely this would be done by "criminals" and they dont care about the law especially the law on the other side of the globe.