51% Attacks on Bitcoin and Ethereum Networks Are Not Possible Due to ...

[ABCbits]

51% Attacks on Bitcoin and Ethereum Networks Are Not Possible Due to Impractical Costs: Coin Metrics

It is no longer viable for nation-states to destroy the Bitcoin (BTC) and Ethereum (ETH) networks through 51% attacks. According to the latest research from crypto intelligence firm Coin Metrics, the astronomical costs required to carry out such attacks make them impractical and unprofitable... Read more here


While i agree with what researcher said since it's expensive to obtain tons of SHA-256 ASIC or ETH coin, they do not consider possibility of performing 51% attack by hacking BTC mining or ETH staking pool. Your opinion is greatly appreciated.

[Z-tight]

While i agree with what researcher said since it's expensive to obtain tons of SHA-256 ASIC or ETH coin, they do not consider possibility of performing 51% attack by hacking BTC mining or ETH staking pool. Your opinion is greatly appreciated.

I also agree that a 51% attack on the BTC network is slim to none, the cost involved and the chances of failure even after spending on it, makes it impossible for any institution to try it out. However, what do you mean by 'hacking BTC mining', there are so many miners and mining pools, how can mining be hacked when it is not centralized and there is no single point of failure, i don't see how this can happen.

[TomPluz]

While i agree with what researcher said since it's expensive to obtain tons of SHA-256 ASIC or ETH coin, they do not consider possibility of performing 51% attack by hacking BTC mining or ETH staking pool. Your opinion is greatly appreciated.

I also agree that a 51% attack on the BTC network is slim to none, the cost involved and the chances of failure even after spending on it, makes it impossible for any institution to try it out. However, what do you mean by 'hacking BTC mining', there are so many miners and mining pools, how can mining be hacked when it is not centralized and there is no single point of failure, i don't see how this can happen.

I think the same thing is true here...hacking BTC miners and ETH staking pool can also be taking a lot of effort, time and maybe even cost so if if the idea can be possible the question of viability and profitability reduces the endeavor to non-interesting at all. Now, am sure hackers and scammers are one of the most creative people around with many of them so gifted that is why they continually make millions out of their success. These people know what they are doing and there is no idea left unturned and undeliberated for them as a single minute weakness can lead to a windfall of financial power for them. They are even more advanced and always a step ahead of the other side of the equation: the solution providers.

[ABCbits]

However, what do you mean by 'hacking BTC mining', there are so many miners and mining pools, how can mining be hacked when it is not centralized and there is no single point of failure, i don't see how this can happen.

I'm aware there are so many miners out there. But when i said "hacking BTC mining or ETH staking pool", it means (1) hacking BTC mining pool or (2) hacking ETH staking pool. Theoretically, if someone can hack both Foundry USA (30.46% hashrate) and Antpool (26.4%), they can perform 51% attack for short time before one of the workers realize and stop the hack.

P.S. hashrate number taken from https://mempool.space/mining.

[Z-tight]

Theoretically, if someone can hack both Foundry USA (30.46% hashrate) and Antpool (26.4%), they can perform 51% attack for short time before one of the workers realize and stop the hack.

The chances of this happening is very slim to none, i know i read some months back that a BTC mining pool called GHash.io was hacked in 2014, but this pool controlled more than 51% of the hashrate, but for a short time. However, no pool right now controls more than 51% of the hashrate, and hacking two different pools at the same time is almost impossible. These pools are also more secured than they were in the past.

[Don Pedro Dinero]

Leaving aside the possible case that ABCbits comments on hacking into a mining pool, I believe that as time goes by:

1) It makes no sense for major governments to carry out such an attack, as more and more people have cryptocurrencies and there are more companies related to them.

2) In the case of bitcoin (I don't know about altcoins), as time goes on it will continue to become more difficult if the hashrate continues to rise, which is what is likely to happen in the long term.

[ABCbits]

Theoretically, if someone can hack both Foundry USA (30.46% hashrate) and Antpool (26.4%), they can perform 51% attack for short time before one of the workers realize and stop the hack.

The chances of this happening is very slim to none, i know i read some months back that a BTC mining pool called GHash.io was hacked in 2014, but this pool controlled more than 51% of the hashrate, but for a short time. However, no pool right now controls more than 51% of the hashrate, and hacking two different pools at the same time is almost impossible. These pools are also more secured than they were in the past.

Let's hope those pools actually take security very seriously.

1) It makes no sense for major governments to carry out such an attack, as more and more people have cryptocurrencies and there are more companies related to them.

I agree. In addition, they could just create law which restrict or even ban cryptocurrency usage which is less costly.

[trendcoin]

I read a few days ago that a 51% attack on the Bitcoin network would require 20 billion dollars and a 51% attack on the Ethereum network would require 34 billion dollars. Of course, I'm happy that the probability of a 51% attack is low, but I'm more happy that even if such an attack happens one day, they won't be able to block the network forever. Don Quixote's fight against windmills had a greater potential. :)

[Z-tight]

but I'm more happy that even if such an attack happens one day, they won't be able to block the network forever.

I am having a hard time understanding what you mean by 'block' in the sentence above, however, BTC network cannot be stopped by anyone because there is no single point of failure, and even if a 51% attack happens, which i believe it never will, it would not be long before nodes detect the malicious activity and stop validating tx's and relaying information from the malicious actor to other nodes.

[Captain Corporate]

We need to remember, even if someone ever even tries it, then everyone else would go on the defensive and would make it even harder to do it, so they would have to slowly gather as much mining equipment as they could without letting anyone know, and you can't just buy it because it would be known, so they would have to build it, and that would require a lot of time as well. I would guess that its not really possible or at least like it is said, viable. It would be near impossible and not worth it at all. It is just way too expensive for a short temporary attack that will be gone in a few days at max.

[ABCbits]

but I'm more happy that even if such an attack happens one day, they won't be able to block the network forever.

I am having a hard time understanding what you mean by 'block' in the sentence above, however, BTC network cannot be stopped by anyone because there is no single point of failure, and even if a 51% attack happens, which i believe it never will, it would not be long before nodes detect the malicious activity and stop validating tx's and relaying information from the malicious actor to other nodes.

By block, i think he refer to preventing certain transaction from getting confirmed or included in block. It's definitely possible with 51% attack since only the attacker can create the block with most accumulated proof of work. As for blocking node/tx created by 51% attacker, AFAIK it needs to be done manually.

[examplens]

By block, i think he refer to preventing certain transaction from getting confirmed or included in block. It's definitely possible with 51% attack since only the attacker can create the block with most accumulated proof of work. As for blocking node/tx created by 51% attacker, AFAIK it needs to be done manually.

The story of the 51% attack was somehow always covered by the fact that it is theoretically feasible but too expensive.
I am more concerned about the attack coming from "one" holder. I think I saw somewhere that ETF holds over 110k Bitcoin, and it's just the beginning.

[Z-tight]

I am more concerned about the attack coming from "one" holder. I think I saw somewhere that ETF holds over 110k Bitcoin, and it's just the beginning.

BTC whales and institutional investors control a large portion of BTC in circulation, but i don't see how they can 'artack' the BTC network in that way. I can think of price manipulation as the only form of attack possible by 'one holders', i.e. if they decide to dump a large amount of their coins, the price of BTC will take a major hit, but other than than i can't see another form of attack.

[ABCbits]

By block, i think he refer to preventing certain transaction from getting confirmed or included in block. It's definitely possible with 51% attack since only the attacker can create the block with most accumulated proof of work. As for blocking node/tx created by 51% attacker, AFAIK it needs to be done manually.

The story of the 51% attack was somehow always covered by the fact that it is theoretically feasible but too expensive.

Yeah, although it's only true for major cryptocurrency.

I am more concerned about the attack coming from "one" holder. I think I saw somewhere that ETF holds over 110k Bitcoin, and it's just the beginning.

For Bitcoin and other PoW coin, they can't attack the network directly (which is covered by research on this thread) by owning tons of coins. Although for ETH and similar coins, it'd be somewhat concerning.