Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by olalonde 358 days ago
First, that figure is way off. Marathon alone has a market cap over $4B and controls less than 5% of the total hash rate.

Second, the system only seems vulnerable if you ignore economic incentives. A 51% attack isn't just technically difficult - it's economically irrational. Pulling it off would cost billions, and even then, there's no clear way to profit from it. The only scenario where it makes sense is a non-economic actor (e.g. a hostile government) aiming to disrupt Bitcoin. But even then, that investment could be neutralized by a fork that tweaks the mining algorithm, instantly rendering the attacker's hardware obsolete.

4 comments

It's true that buying 51% hash power would cost far more than $4B. Some people assume that you could rent 51% hash power for a short time (like a day) to do the attack.
According to ChatGPT (bad source I know but can't find it anywhere else), the entire value of the entire mining network is about $6B. What do you think it is?
Closer to $20B. MARA owns $1B in equipment for example.
If we're talking about a fork, couldn't a fork just ignore the attack? The normal miners aren't forced to use the attacker's blocks after all.
The problem is that there's no reliable way to identify who mined a given block, so you can't simply have the network "ignore blocks from the attacker." The coinbase transaction may contain identifying info (e.g., pool name) but it's not mandatory nor authenticated.
Why would someone want a random block chain company to own 5% of the possibility of destroying their holdings? What if the company gets co-opted by some nation state actor? Bitcoin really seems like a terrible place to keep wealth.
I'm not sure I follow your question. Who is the "someone" you're referring to? And what do you mean by "destroying their holdings"? Even in a 51% attack, an attacker can't alter wallet balances or arbitrarily erase funds.

Also, what alternative "place to keep wealth" is truly immune to a nation-state actor? Cryptocurrency is actually unique in that, with something like a brainwallet, seizure can be made practically impossible.

If you own 5% of the hash rate you have ~0% ability to attack the network.
Yes, but if you're a nation state with dictatorial control over a nation's resources, +5% might be all you need.
I guess all of these arguments have existed since the beginning of Bitcoin (51% attack, miner centralization, supply chain centralization, etc). What we do know is while it theoretically could happen it hasn't happened yet.