Ethereum can afford a 51% attack on Bitcoin, and could profit greatly from it

[mjdamgaard]

To succeed in such an attack, you need about 40 million S9 units and a huge amount of electrical power in addition to the space. The chance of this attack continuing is not related to the amount of money you spend to make the attack successful, but to keep all these devices safe. Do you expect that companies or individuals will not move against you to stop providing you with electricity or attack these facilities? While in Ethereum, implementing a 51% attack is much easier, as you need money to implement a successful attack.

Well, in terms of the logistics of it all, the 51% attack could be made easier by bribing existing miners (potentially via smart contracts on Ethereum), as also mentioned in my preprint, https://www.researchgate.net/publication/382247908_A_severe_Goldfinger_attack_vector_on_Proof-of-Work_blockchains.

You bring up a good question of whether attacks would face resistance from companies or individuals (and one might also add: persecution from governments). I couldn't say for sure.

But in my personal view, I find it equally likely that the Ethereum stakeholders could persuade companies, governments, and individuals to be on their side, due to the massive electricity consumption that might be freed for other use—or saved, leading to less CO₂ emission—as a consequence of bringing down Bitcoin.

However, since Ethereum stakeholders can bribe Bitcoin miners anonymously, this issue might not even be relevant in the end.

Edit:
Oh, and about the ASIC companies in particular: Well, how would they know the intentions of their costumers? (And what could they really do about it?)

[Lucius]

@mjdamgaard, Vitalik is that you?

No matter what kind of attack you are talking about, the people around ETH are not going to join a criminal association to try something that would do them more harm than good. All those stories about how ETH will one day "overthrow" BTC in one way or another are just fairy tales for small children, because the trust that BTC has is hard for any other cryptocurrency to ever gain, especially if they ever think of going in the direction you are talking about.

One team that tried to take down BTC with their fork ended up very ingloriously, I have no doubt that the same fate would await others.

[mjdamgaard]

@mjdamgaard, Vitalik is that you?

No matter what kind of attack you are talking about, the people around ETH are not going to join a criminal association to try something that would do them more harm than good. All those stories about how ETH will one day "overthrow" BTC in one way or another are just fairy tales for small children, because the trust that BTC has is hard for any other cryptocurrency to ever gain, especially if they ever think of going in the direction you are talking about.

One team that tried to take down BTC with their fork ended up very ingloriously, I have no doubt that the same fate would await others.

He, I wish. Well, according to your own argument, Vitalik would not engage in this discussion.

Interesting. To which fork are you referring here? Can you provide a link/reference?

I will say 'joining a criminal association' is certainly one way of phrasing it. But I believe that the Ethereum stakeholders might be able to communicate a different narrative. They might put it instead as 'exposing PoW as a no longer viable technology' and also perhaps as 'relieving the world of a wasteful an unnecessary electricity consumption.'

As mentioned in my preprint, they also don't necessarily have to make a directly harmful attack on Bitcoin in order to still be able to showcase the vulnerability.

And perhaps they would indeed only need to showcase this power in order to make some investors migrate from Bitcoin to Ethereum. Once this migration has started, it could then create a positive feedback loop, as hypothesized in an earlier reply, causing more and more investors to follow suit.

[Stompix]

To succeed in such an attack, you need about 40 million S9 units and a huge amount of electrical power in addition to the space.

Where did you get that?
Nobody would be attacking with S9, even fi we talk S19, either pro or K or xp you would need around 4 to 6 millions of them.
If we talk S21Hydros X it could be done with 1.25 million.

Do you expect that companies or individuals will not move against you to stop providing you with electricity or attack these facilities?

Why and how?
How can you stop me legally from mining empty blocks on a decentralized permissionless blockchain owned by nobody?

One team that tried to take down BTC with their fork ended up very ingloriously, I have no doubt that the same fate would await others.

They never tried to do it via hashrate attack because it would have harmed them too, but if they did try at that point the BCH team would have won, they controlled more than half of the hashrate, but in the end money talked and miners went for the bigger profits, if bitmain/via/btccom/f2/antpool would have gone in suicidal scorched earth at that time it would have been the end of both.

[bitmover]

You would need to basically buy many mining companies, it would be more realistic.

Yeah, but just as those companies got their gear you can get yours, right?
It's still a matter of money.

But they didn't buy gear to have enough hashrate to make a 51% attack. I doubt any mining company would have more than 3-5% (maybe 10? I really doubt it)....

It would be interesting to see charts like that, we usually only see charts of pools, not companies/miners hashrate. Although I think it is very hard to make a realistic hash rate chart, as this data is not easily available.

[Stompix]

It would be interesting to see charts like that, we usually only see charts of pools, not companies/miners hashrate. Although I think it is very hard to make a realistic hash rate chart, as this data is not easily available.

Once you start digging for the US it becomes pretty simple.
First, we must ignore the fact that one company holds just 10Exahash for example, that's how much they afford to buy, if you have billions flowing in you could buy as many as ten companies like that and expand as you wish.

We know Foundy is a closed pool, you need at least 100Ph/s to be able to mine there, and it's US-based, so companies in the US and small miners there have somewhere in the 150-200 Exas at their disposal, if those companies managed to acquire that much hashrate in 2-3 years, why would it be impossible for other to do so as long as they have the money.
Now if someone wants to do real deep research on it, it can start from the SEC fillings for riot, mara, hut8, and many more, most of them are publicly traded companies, so their costs as well as investments and debts and losses/profits are all public.

I would just say that
- you have 20 billion to spend, yes you could launch an attack, and make it successful
- you have 20 billion, maybe there are way smarter ways of making 40 billion with less hassle
- we talk just $ at this point acquiring 51% of the hash rate is cheaper than acquiring 51% of all ETH coins
but!!
- you don't need to buy 51% of all ETH coins to do that, see LIDO

[mjdamgaard]

No matter what kind of attack you are talking about, the people around ETH are not going to join a criminal association to try something that would do them more harm than good. All those stories about how ETH will one day "overthrow" BTC in one way or another are just fairy tales for small children, because the trust that BTC has is hard for any other cryptocurrency to ever gain, especially if they ever think of going in the direction you are talking about.

It is also worth pointing out that the attackers don't need to have the prominent members of the community on board for the attack. As discussed in an earlier reply, they only need a fraction of the Ethereum stakeholders to take part in order to turn a profit (given the aforementioned assumption that the total demand for crypto won't suffer greatly, at least when enough time has passed).

Even with something like 20% taking part, they could still make their assets grow potentially by more than 100%. By the way, the remaining Ethereum stakeholders who "keep their hands clean" of the attack will also have their assets grow as a result, only by slightly more (as they don't carry any of the costs).

And given that the attackers can be completely anonymous if they bribe the miners via smart contracts, as described in my preprint, it is not that hard to imagine that 20% or more of the stakeholders would be willing to shake things up and earn a lot of money.

[Crwth]

if you are just talking about the having the capacity to pay and get all the necessary stuff to do the 51% attack, then it can. So the majority of the biggest companies could also do that because they can afford it, Would they do that as well? I don’t know maybe when there is something that does it. I hope we don’t see it though.

[mjdamgaard]

if you are just talking about the having the capacity to pay and get all the necessary stuff to do the 51% attack, then it can. So the majority of the biggest companies could also do that because they can afford it, Would they do that as well? I don’t know maybe when there is something that does it. I hope we don’t see it though.

Well, if the Bitcoin community is cohesive and fast enough to react, they should be able to mitigate it. At least, I think so..

As far as I can see, there is nothing stopping Bitcoin from following in the footsteps of Ethereum. Until 2022, Ethereum also used a PoW protocol, then they switched to PoS. Why wouldn't Bitcoin be able to do the same?

Hopefully they will be quick enough to act before investors get uneasy and start migrating to Ethereum. And hopefully the community will be sufficiently on the same page about the conversion, as to not cause a hard fork.

Edit:
Granted, Ethereum's switch to PoS had been a long time coming, but still... Bitcoin could in principle do just the same.

[Lucius]

He, I wish. Well, according to your own argument, Vitalik would not engage in this discussion.

Of course he wouldn't stoop to such a low level to communicate with us, because from everything I know about him he has a very high opinion of himself and his project which (unfortunately for him) has never and will never reach Bitcoin in anything.

Interesting. To which fork are you referring here? Can you provide a link/reference?

@Stompix already mentioned in his post that it is a BCH fork, but their attempt failed regardless of everything they invested to convince people that their coin is real Bitcoin.

I will say 'joining a criminal association' is certainly one way of phrasing it. But I believe that the Ethereum stakeholders might be able to communicate a different narrative. They might put it instead as 'exposing PoW as a no longer viable technology' and also perhaps as 'relieving the world of a wasteful an unnecessary electricity consumption.'

They can communicate in any way they want, but if the motive is malicious, then nothing matters. The fact that ETH left POW means nothing more than the weakness of those behind the project, and in the long term they have done themselves great harm because that token will be nothing more than another in a series of centralized altcoins.

Myths about how BTC mining consumes huge amounts of energy (relative to who or what?) have long since been dispelled - because it was undoubtedly established that it used to be 0.2% of total electricity, of which more than 50% came from renewable sources.

In addition, if you were to assume that BTC mining consumes around 200 TWh per year (probably less than that), and that the losses in the global electrical network are as much as 50 000 TWh per year, then you can see how stupid it is to go in that direction at all.

As mentioned in my preprint, they also don't necessarily have to make a directly harmful attack on Bitcoin in order to still be able to showcase the vulnerability.
And perhaps they would indeed only need to showcase this power in order to make some investors migrate from Bitcoin to Ethereum. Once this migration has started, it could then create a positive feedback loop, as hypothesized in an earlier reply, causing more and more investors to follow suit.

I can publicly say that I would not be among those who would switch to ETH for any reason, and I see no reason for most investors to do the same. People will always look for ways to profit from cryptocurrencies, but the idea that ETH will dethrone BTC is 10 years old and has never come close to being realized.

The only reason why ETH is in second position is that it has x6 circulating supply in relation to BTC, and there is still no clearly defined max supply.

[silkytakyaan86]

Look, after Bitcoin, if anyone has been seen in the market, then it is Ethereum. But as I said, after Bitcoin, the primary one is Bitcoin. I don't think there will be any impact on it.

[pieppiep]

Look, after Bitcoin, if anyone has been seen in the market, then it is Ethereum. But as I said, after Bitcoin, the primary one is Bitcoin. I don't think there will be any impact on it.

The current price movement of Ethereum still depends on the price movement of Bitcoin. Although Ethereum has good news about being accepted by ETF Ethereum will not make the price of Ethereum increase significantly. A few days ago Ethereum also collapsed so this shows that Bitcoin is still dominant over several other altcoins including Ethereum.

[mjdamgaard]

He, I wish. Well, according to your own argument, Vitalik would not engage in this discussion.

Of course he wouldn't stoop to such a low level to communicate with us, because from everything I know about him he has a very high opinion of himself and his project which (unfortunately for him) has never and will never reach Bitcoin in anything.

Interesting. To which fork are you referring here? Can you provide a link/reference?

@Stompix already mentioned in his post that it is a BCH fork, but their attempt failed regardless of everything they invested to convince people that their coin is real Bitcoin.

I will say 'joining a criminal association' is certainly one way of phrasing it. But I believe that the Ethereum stakeholders might be able to communicate a different narrative. They might put it instead as 'exposing PoW as a no longer viable technology' and also perhaps as 'relieving the world of a wasteful an unnecessary electricity consumption.'

They can communicate in any way they want, but if the motive is malicious, then nothing matters. The fact that ETH left POW means nothing more than the weakness of those behind the project, and in the long term they have done themselves great harm because that token will be nothing more than another in a series of centralized altcoins.

Myths about how BTC mining consumes huge amounts of energy (relative to who or what?) have long since been dispelled - because it was undoubtedly established that it used to be 0.2% of total electricity, of which more than 50% came from renewable sources.

In addition, if you were to assume that BTC mining consumes around 200 TWh per year (probably less than that), and that the losses in the global electrical network are as much as 50 000 TWh per year, then you can see how stupid it is to go in that direction at all.

As mentioned in my preprint, they also don't necessarily have to make a directly harmful attack on Bitcoin in order to still be able to showcase the vulnerability.
And perhaps they would indeed only need to showcase this power in order to make some investors migrate from Bitcoin to Ethereum. Once this migration has started, it could then create a positive feedback loop, as hypothesized in an earlier reply, causing more and more investors to follow suit.

I can publicly say that I would not be among those who would switch to ETH for any reason, and I see no reason for most investors to do the same. People will always look for ways to profit from cryptocurrencies, but the idea that ETH will dethrone BTC is 10 years old and has never come close to being realized.

The only reason why ETH is in second position is that it has x6 circulating supply in relation to BTC, and there is still no clearly defined max supply.

I admire your conviction, and I honestly don't doubt that a large portion of the Bitcoin community will agree with you.

But I'm not entirely convinced that this conviction will matter much in case of an actual 51% attack. If Ethereum stakeholders indeed manage to fund a successful 51% attack on Bitcoin, surely the value of Bitcoin would be severely damaged by it, would it not?

Also, regarding the whole publicity aspect of it, I do think that with several hundred billion dollars on the line, Ethereum would be able to make a campaign and spin it the right way to get public support, if they really want that. And as far as I know, Bitcoin is at least as infamous as it is famous to a sizable part of the public, but that doesn't really stop it from trading well on the market.

But then again, since only a fraction of the stakeholders need to take part in funding the attack (and can do so anonymously), a majority of the Ethereum community could still be seen as innocent after the attack, even if the attack turns out to be disliked by the public.

Edit:
I should also say: You do make a good point about electricity coming in large part from renewable sources. However, if PoW is exposed as not delivering on the security that it promises anyway, i.e. in the presence of a rival PoS blockchain large enough to be able to afford an attack, then it's still just electricity (and money) down the bin, essentially.

[Lucius]

I admire your conviction, and I honestly don't doubt that a large portion of the Bitcoin community will agree with you.

But I'm not entirely convinced that this conviction will matter much in case of an actual 51% attack. If Ethereum stakeholders indeed manage to fund a successful 51% attack on Bitcoin, surely the value of Bitcoin would be severely damaged by it, would it not?

People would agree with me because they have a trust in Bitcoin that has been built long enough to make BTC what it is today. For some it's just a great investment asset, for others it's a perfect cryptocurrency, for others it's both.

Of course, the attack you are talking about is not something that should be completely rejected, but I personally think that the people you are talking about do not have the courage or too much motivation to do it. Such an attack is a double-edged sword, because if they fail, what would it mean that ETH?

Also, regarding the whole publicity aspect of it, I do think that with several hundred billion dollars on the line, Ethereum would be able to make a campaign and spin it the right way to get public support, if they really want that. And as far as I know, Bitcoin is at least as infamous as it is famous to a sizable part of the public, but that doesn't really stop it from trading well on the market.

I'll say it again, I think you overestimate their power and motive - do you think the devs headed by Vitalik would agree with their attack on BTC? It is true that over the years BTC has gained a bad name due to some mainstream media reporting poorly on some things such as ransomware or the possible financing of terrorism with BTC, but it is never the tool's fault but the people who use it inappropriately.

But then again, since only a fraction of the stakeholders need to take part in funding the attack (and can do so anonymously), a majority of the Ethereum community could still be seen as innocent after the attack, even if the attack turns out to be disliked by the public.

No one would be innocent because you can't escape the fact that it was done by people involved with ETH - the very fact that these people (regardless of who they are) have such malicious intentions would throw a big stain on the whole project.

Edit:
I should also say: You do make a good point about electricity coming in large part from renewable sources. However, if PoW is exposed as not delivering on the security that it promises anyway, i.e. in the presence of a rival PoS blockchain large enough to be able to afford an attack, then it's still just electricity (and money) down the bin, essentially.

The fact is that PoW has been working since 2009 for BTC, and it is only your assumption that PoS can be some kind of threat. For me personally, PoS is a step backwards for ETH, because someone wrote that the whole thing can be run by a character from his basement if he is powerful enough.

Bitcoin is much more than money, electricity and the fight for thrones, but maybe it will take another 10 or 15 years for everyone to understand that.

[mjdamgaard]

Of course, the attack you are talking about is not something that should be completely rejected, but I personally think that the people you are talking about do not have the courage or too much motivation to do it. Such an attack is a double-edged sword, because if they fail, what would it mean that ETH?

Yeah, that is hard to guess at, I must admit. Maybe people are thinking too much about crypto as one thing, and are not thinking much about the competition between the different blockchains.

But I can't help but feel like that could quickly change, especially if the Ethereum community starts being just a little bit vocal about this potential security flaw in PoW, as well as focusing on the narrative of being more friendly to the environment (and more cost-effective for the investors/users who have to ultimately pay the electricity bill).

As an anecdote, when I have talked about working on an attack vector to friends and family, merely the mention of the fact that it could save an electricity consumption the size of Finland's or Belgium's, or whatever it is exactly, immediately makes them quite excited and positively interested in it. Obviously there's a bias here to take into account, but nonetheless I can't help but feel that a large part of the public would be quite positive towards a change from PoW to PoS, and quite frankly perhaps even enough to be in support of Ethereum making a power move on Bitcoin in order to force such a change.

And as the original inventors of the 'Goldfinger attack' (Kroll et al.) argues (referencing an earlier paper by Becker et al.), maybe there's even a chance, however slim, that the public could go as far as help funding the attack. Again, it might be a slim chance, but this is just to illustrate the point.

I'll say it again, I think you overestimate their power and motive - do you think the devs headed by Vitalik would agree with their attack on BTC? It is true that over the years BTC has gained a bad name due to some mainstream media reporting poorly on some things such as ransomware or the possible financing of terrorism with BTC, but it is never the tool's fault but the people who use it inappropriately.

But then again, since only a fraction of the stakeholders need to take part in funding the attack (and can do so anonymously), a majority of the Ethereum community could still be seen as innocent after the attack, even if the attack turns out to be disliked by the public.

No one would be innocent because you can't escape the fact that it was done by people involved with ETH - the very fact that these people (regardless of who they are) have such malicious intentions would throw a big stain on the whole project.

I honestly think you might be right about the fact that if we asked the devs and/or stakeholders right at this moment if they would be supportive of such an attack, their first answer would probably be no.

But on the other hand, I think that with the potential growth of their assets of around 100% or more looming on the horizon, that mentality is bound to slowly change over time, at least for a good portion of the stakeholders.

And because even the talk alone about this security flaw could already start making slightly more investors choose Ethereum over Bitcoin than before, which would already make the preexisting stakeholders' assets grow in that case, I think they are bound to start being more and more vocal about it at some point.

With so much money on the line, this contention will most likely reach the public sooner or later. And if the a big enough part of the public turns out to be in favor of a change to PoS, even perhaps by forcing Bitcoin's hands, then the Ethereum stakeholders (and devs for that matter, not that they are really required to take part) would have their green light to go ahead.