3 ms·
Yes, but I was talking about "decentralized leadership" in all the projects following Bitcoin, which often use 51% of stake instead of 51% of mining capacity, u
by LegionMammal978 1y ago
Yes, but I was talking about "decentralized leadership" in all the projects following Bitcoin, which often use 51% of stake instead of 51% of mining capacity, under the social theory that the biggest stakeholders will be the most invested in the outcome of the project.
- MichaelZuo 1y agoThose with at least 51% of the sustained hash power can already redefine “Bitcoin” to be whatever they want… At any time whatsoever? (assuming they stay cohesive enough as a bloc) So this seems like a pointless distinction.
- deleted 1y ago[deleted]
- Retric 1y ago51% hashing power doesn’t prevent forks. Including forks to 51% of the token systems. That’s the thing people thing of crypto coins as math, but they’re still a social construct.
- olalonde 1y agoThat statement is a bit misleading. The damage an attacker can do through a 51% attack is much more limited than that. It allows an attacker to censor transactions or perform double spends, but it does not allow them to "redefine Bitcoin" (e.g. change consensus rules, arbitrarily reassign coins, etc.).
- MichaelZuo 1y agoWhy can’t such a bloc for example rename Bitcoin to Buttcoin?
- olalonde 1y agoAnyone can do that, it doesn't require 51% of the hash power. And it's already been done hundreds, if not thousands, of times (the more technical term for them is "shitcoin").