5 ms·

>>Key Findings >>The number of entities sufficient to disrupt a blockchain is relatively low: four for Bitcoin, two for Ethereum, and less than a dozen for mos

• mattwilsonn888 4y ago
  https://saito.tech/the-double-spend-attack-is-not-the-same-as-the-51-percent-attack/ https://saito.tech/the-double-spend-attack-is-not-the-same-a... https://www.investopedia.com/terms/s/selfish-mining.asp https://www.investopedia.com/terms/s/selfish-mining.asp Because you can make more money keeping it under the radar.
• frabert 4y ago
  From the report, > Even though these Nakamoto coefficients are relatively low, some might argue that exploiting them to attack a blockchain would be prohibitively expensive. While this may be true for individuals, the actors incentivized to perpetrate these attacks include operators of competing currencies and nation-states who have the requisite resources. Perverse incentives can exist with blockchains in the same way that the relative values of fiat currencies can be manipulated.
  • mypastself 4y ago
    Competing currencies are unlikely to profit from Bitcoin’s downfall in this scenario, given how much the entire space relies on its reputation. Nation-states, on the other hand, are the more credible threat. Just because none of them has yet found it a big enough threat to expend the required resources, doesn’t mean it can’t happen. I feel like the more Bitcoin is used for its original intended purpose rather than merely speculation, the more likely it is to be attacked by such actors.
  • bhaak 4y ago
    I think it's more complex than the report poses it. It's not as if those mentioned entities always have complete control over their mining hardware as those entities include pool miners. I think there's more that prevents an attack than just being "prohibitively expensive".
• danamit 4y ago
  They are talking here about mining pools I suppose since the biggest 4 mining pools account for more than 50% of validated blocks. Also the word is "disrupt" so it means some time of chaos, the mining pools never tried to disrupt Bitcoin because they have no incentive to do so.
  • m00dy 4y ago
    it is nothing about incentive. Let's say a mining pool wants to disrupt the bitcoin network, do you think that pool will keep its hashrate ? I don't think so.
    • danamit 4y ago
      Disrupt is creating chaos short term, I don't imagine it to last more than 1 hour, but that's enough to call it disrupt.
  • JamesSwift 4y ago
    That assumes they are economically motivated. As we've seen in recent attacks on other coins, if its a possibility for someone to burn the system down out of spite/malice then the economic incentive doesn't matter.
    • danamit 4y ago
      1. If half of Bitcoin users (hashrate-wise) wanted to disrupt the network out of malice ignoring their economic wellbeing, say a movement similar to GME/WSB, then they can disrupt it. 2. We can go into lower levels and find a number of ISPs specially level 1 ones being able to disrupt the Bitcoin network. Some other single points of failure I can imagine are common routers firmware. Can Bitcoin never be disrupted? no, does it have mechanisms in place that make it unlikely to be disrupted? yes.
• Cthulhu_ 4y ago
  It really isn't, but that debate will quickly end up in a discussion about the definition of 'secure'. My take; people and organizations / exchanges have lost billions. Maybe not on the blockchain itself, but a system is only as strong as its weakest link, and the whole Bitcoin / cryptocurrency system has a lot of weak links and little backups. I mean if my bank goes bankrupt the money I have in their savings accounts is reimbursed. If my bank card gets stolen to the point where they can withdraw money from it - or if I'm made to withdraw money at gunpoint - I'll get the money back.