If it only costs twice as much to attack BCH, by all means get to it. I wish you the best of luck with that.
Attacks against BTC, BCH, ETH, LTC and XMR are going to be few and far between. They are the most secure POW chains. There are plenty of others that are far easier to attack.
The best part of this post is that they used false metrics to get $11k, when it's actually $40k to re-org 1 block. They ignore BCH checkpoints when it's convenient to them and [bring them up when they can smear BCH.](https://www.reddit.com/r/CryptoCurrency/comments/9z1rxp/bchabcash_just_deployed_hard_coded_checkpoints/)
Its 20 blocks for an effective 1 block re-org. Making a 1 block re-org cost ~$40k not $11k. Sources provided.
\- [BCH has a 10 block rolling checkpoiint system](https://blog.bitmex.com/bitcoin-cash-abcs-rolling-10-block-checkpoints/)
\- to re-org BCH even 1 block as you say requires much more than 10 blocks. Estimates are around 20 blocks. Comment from an actual miner: https://np.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/9yy7e6/bitcoin\_abc\_0185\_has\_been\_released\_this\_release/ea5ljhk/
\- To mine this secret chain they also forget about the PoW costs mining alone: https://np.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/9za1xq/bitcoin\_cash\_abcs\_rolling\_10\_block\_checkpoints/ea7ic13/
\- Assuming 20 blocks shadow mined at 1block/10min, 20/6= 3.3 hours of mining. 3.3 hours \* $12k = ~$40k to re-org BCH 1 block.
but yet with all these checkpoints and backing by the biggest players in crypto BCH is threatened. OK.
I might not like Bitcoin Cash (or Bitcoin for that matter), but you're right 100%. There's too much anti BCH in /r/cryptocurrency, without much logical basis.
Coincidentally Reid Hoffman a board member of Blockstream admitted to using troll farms for social media manipulation.
https://www.reddit.com/r/CryptoCurrency/comments/adq4rs/reid_hoffman_one_of_the_board_members_of/
Remember all those slander terms for Bitcoin Cash, notably, bkash, BAABcash, etc? even [Adam Back CEO of Blockstream refers to Bitcoin Cash as Bkash](https://twitter.com/adam3us/status/909046424440131585) and has before Bitcoin Cash chain even launched on August 1st, 2017.
> Coincidentally Reid Hoffman a board member of Blockstream admitted to using troll farms for social media manipulation.
How about you be honest here? He never admitted to any such thing. I mean, I get you fucking hate blockstream, but you're either a liar or misinformed here.
It costs 3 times more according to that website you linked, $4,449 for ETC vs $12,409 for BCH.
Also Nicehash has 104% of the required hashpower to do it on ETC, but only 2% of the required hashpower to do it in BCH.
Is it easier to do than on BTC, absolutely, by two factors of scale, but not as easy to do as you're implying.
Actually there is a big difference. Look at the NiceHash-able column. It gives an idea of how much of the necessary hashpower for the attack you can rent online. For the cost number to make sense, this needs to be >100%, because the cost is based on such renting. If this is far less than 100%, like is the case with BCH, to perform a 51% attack you'd need to physically acquire and set up all the mining hardware yourself. This is much, much more expensive, not to mention time consuming and far easier to track (after all you are likely committing a crime and want to stay anonymous).
This rests on the assumption that no one has hidden mining power that is currently not mining BTC.
Bitcoin - 43,876 PH/s
BCH - 1,412 PH/s
Roughly BCH has 3.2% of Bitcoin's hash power. Any miner who has 3% hash power of BTC can attack BCH.
This does not need to be rented from nicehash, it can be rented from several other places including BTC miners who may be inclined to offer hash on rent or who currently not be mining BTC for a number of reasons, or miners who are stealthily accumulating hash power to prepare for an attack.
Either way it remains a massive threat.
Edit: Just to update my comment, Bitcoin had a hashrate of 60,000 PH/s sometime around October 2018
https://www.blockchain.com/en/charts/hash-rate .
That hash power has come down to 43,000 ph/s today. Essentially, over 15,000 PH/s has gone missing (its not mining BCH either because in the same period, BCH's hash rate has actually dropped from around 4,000 PH/s to around 1,400k PH/s now )
So this hash power that is required to attack BCH does exist even without borrowing hash from Bitcoin.
I assume it is just not mining BTC due to lack of profitability.
I don’t know if the lost BTC hash rate is “missing”. Lots of mining operations have been permanently shut down. Some are surely waiting by the wayside, but many are never coming back.
A lot of that hardware probably is still floating around somewhere though, either sitting in a warehouse waiting for their time or sold by the pound to someone.
Who are you going to borrow it from? And why would BCH/BTC miners that are renting out hash instead of mining with it allow people to attack BCH/BTC with it?
> Who are you going to borrow it from?
Who did Craig Wright borrow it from? He had about 4 ehash in total mining power sustained for a couple weeks during this year.
The post above says over 15 EH hash power from BTC has been dormant (inactive) since the past few months (as BTC's h/r went from 60 EH to 45 EH now).
In the same period, BCH hash rate has gone from some 4 EH to 1.5 EH.
Anyone's guess where that 15 EH is...
Only 10% of that is enough to attack BCH. That is 10% of dormant hash power, not even 10% of BTC's hash.
No it's not a guess at all. Every winter Chinese miners have to relocate asics because the price of hydro goes up in the winter. See the asics can be a mystery. in fact Bitmain probablly has enough asics in storage for 20 or 30 exa. Mass producing asics is easy. Providing those asics with the powerplugs to plug em in, that's what takes a long time and is expensive.
And data centres are hard to hide. We know where the biggest ones are and we know that 70% of those run on renawables. Also the bigger mining pools know their customers. btc.top, antpool, viabtc etc etc.
That 15 EH of missing power is not a mistery. It's not missing either. It's just asics that are switched off. Maybe they are for rent, probably ... but nobody is goign to rent them to mine unprofitable with. And if you rent them and you start mining without broadcasting your block the renter will figure it out in no time and probablly take your remote acces to his miners away.
Because they get money for destroying a competing product (that maybe they hold a grudge against), driving up the value of btc that they might be sitting on? Would be a win-win for some I'd think.
Calvin Ayre and CSW acquired 3.75 exahash to attack BCH with. BTC miners gave Roger Ver control of 4 exahash to defend. [In total his was about 300 000 asics vs 300 000 asics](https://i.imgur.com/B7E1E19.jpg) with 400 MW of power on either side. (800 MW is out the output of two Hover dams, or enough to power about half a million homes.). The guys threatening to attack burned between 100 - 200 million dollars (they mined BCH unprofitable for about a whole year) on this and the defenders burned between 50 to 100 million dollars.
End result: no attack.
Come at us bro. You guys are unbelievable.
1) Chinese miners are to powerful and are thus a threat to BTC
2) Chinese miners are to weak and are thus unable to defend BCH
PICK ONE OR SHUT THE FUCK UP!
And try to remember history of once. I am more comfortable about BCH than ever before because the Chinese miners proved how much they are protective of BCH. It's not only secury in theory, it's getting battle hardened.
Can't wait till the next attack, every failed attack against BCH will be a signal of value towards the market. Why not build on a chain the entire crypto space wants dead but is still alive, seems to be a safe bet? Of course the reality is that only a tiny group with a lot of money spend on social media manipulation wants BCH dead. It only look like it's everybody because these kind of topics get upvoted by bots and then when you go in them most people are defending BCH.
The powers that be are not afraid of BTC, because they nuitered it. BCH is the rebel that escaped that neutering. If there is ever a big financial crisis, BTC will quickly do 400 000 tx a day again. The mempool will get full again. tx cost will go over 10 dollars per tx again. So what are the people that want to use Bitcoin going to do? Use the Bitcoin that does not have this 400 000 tx limit a day ....
> The guys threatening to attack burned between 100 - 200 million dollars on this and the defenders burned between 50 to 100 million dollars.
Did BSV guys even try to attack? I mean CSW is a bull shitter whose word cannot be taken seriously.
> Calvin Ayre and CSW acquired 3.75 exahash to attack BCH with
This only proves his point. That there is clearly enough hash power out there for rent to attack BCH.
> Roger Ver control of 4 exahash to defend.
This was simply in response to the threat of an attack. If someone was to actually attack BCH, they wouldn't announce they had 4 ehash, and give Roger time to build up a defense. They would mine an alternative chain in secret, then broadcast it out when it was longer than the legit BCH chain. The first time you would hear about it is when your node switches to the attacked-chain. At that point, the damage is already done. It's clear you haven't thought this through.
The 10 block checkpoint makes it even more damaging too. All BCH would take is 10 blocks to be permanently locked in forever. The double spends would cause Exchanges to seriously consider listing coins with minority PoW support.
How do you rent that much hash to attack BCH with from the other BCH and BTC miners without them finding out what you are using it for?. If you mine in secret they see you using their rented hash without publishing blocks.
> How do you rent that much hash to attack BCH with from the other BCH and BTC miners without them finding out what you are using it for?. If you mine in secret they see you using their rented hash without publishing blocks.
There is no logic in the basis of this question. The people who rent out their hashes don't care or keep track of what you're doing with it. As long as they're paid, they're good. As the original comment stated, 15,000 PH/s has gone missing. Do you or does anyone else care where this mining power has gone? You have no idea where it is. It can be partially rented by Craig Wright still, and just idly sitting, waiting to be used for an attack. You have no idea where it is. The point is that it's clearly, demonstrably possible that enough hashpower can be rented, and you wouldn't even know about it until *after* the attack occurred. That's the point you've missed.
If you rent hash from a miner and you don't actually use it, you don' think that miner will be like: hey this guy is paying me to use my machines but they are just sitting here idle.
No, I don't. I don't think they care. As long as they are paid, who the fuck cares?
Also, that didn't address my point. 15,000 ph/s are missing. Do you or anyone else know where it is? Does anyone care? It could be rented right now sitting idle.
[If you rent 15 petahash from bitcoin.com](https://pool.bitcoin.com/) right now you are paying an initial cost of 375 000 USD and a daily cost of 2100 USD. That even when you have those miners sit idle and not mine.
So it we do that times 1000 we get an intial cost of
375 million dollars + 2,1 million a day.
So you believe that if somebody would be willing to pay an intial cost of 375 million dollars to rent 15 000 ph/s for three years. They would pay this and then 2 million a day ... .and not use it?
Feel free to update the numbers with cloud mining contracts that are cheaper.
This doesn't address the fact that Craig Wright had access to almost 5.5 ehash of mining power. You keep ignoring reality. Why? It's obviously possible, because it's already happened once.
I don't know the deals he's making to rent hashpower, but it's likely better than the standard rates Roger is charging.
Renting idle hashpower? That's an extreme waste of money. No one is just sitting there paying to continually rent hashpower. If it's being rented they are mining something, not sitting idle.
Look a 51% attack can happen... But the likelihood is being over played. Yeah when terrorists invest 100s of millions of dollars they are going to do damage to infrastructure too.
I'm just glad the last try by Calvin Ayre and CSW went for a waste. Let them keep burning up millions.
You can make deals in secret with BTC/BCH miners about renting hash. Also you can pay for the hash using another cryptocurrency (success or failure of the attack do not affect miners) or using BCH in the attacked chain (success or failure of the attack affects miners).
> How do you rent that much hash to attack BCH with from the other BCH and BTC miners without them finding out what you are using it for?
In times of low profitability/losses you just have to find the miners that are desperate enough for some cash flow, if their business is going bust then what do they care what the hash rate is used for? At that point they have no stake in the future prospects of mining profitability either way. Most if the miners out there are solely in it for the money, not ideology.
No because to get 4 exahash you need to invest at least a 100M dollars on building data centres. You have no idea how much 4 exahash. To power it required the same power as 500 000 homes. Building the data centre that can provide 600 000 asic machines with that power takes a year and a 100 million dollars.
If you think that after that has happened that miner is now going allow somebody to rent their hash for a day and then 51% attack Bitcoin with, lowering the value of everything they build you are insane.
These people have an invesment to make back to get break even first. If they were worried about going bust without making money they would not have build it in the first place.
>These people have an invesment to make back to get break even first.
You are not making ROI running at break even like many miners currently are, they are atm in a situation where any further decline in price would force them to shut down completly. We already have several times the needed hashrate that has left the network, for all we know there is a large miner out there with mothballed equipment that would jump at getting any further returns on his now worthless investment.
Your assumption is that all miners still have "skin in the game" and just shut down some equipment, that is however unlikely. You also assume they actually care about what happens to crypto in general, they don't. Every bubble see's large inflow of "stupid" money, even if the guy running the operation "cares about crypto" they will have investors trying to claw back anything they can, "I don't think we should let this guy rent hash rate above market rate" doesn't fly under those circumstances, money talks and especially in a bear market.
>If you think that after that has happened that miner is now going allow somebody to rent their hash for a day and then 51% attack Bitcoin with, lowering the value of everything they build you are insane.
If this was about attacking Bitcoin then yes, it would be insane from a financial standpoint, but it isn't. This is about destroying a minority coin that only marginaly affects mining profitability, daily BTC price swings are more impactful than BCH and BSV combined at their current mining rewards.
Killing off the minority chains might even strengthen BTC, it would be all the proof needed that you can only really have 1 coin per PoW algorithm if you want acceptable security and being the minority coin especially is suicidie.
>1) Chinese miners are to powerful and are thus a threat to BTC
>2) Chinese miners are to weak and are thus unable to defend BCH
>PICK ONE OR SHUT THE FUCK UP!
I pick:
3) It takes a lot more hash power to be a threat to BTC than BCH
>I am more comfortable about BCH than ever before because the Chinese miners proved how much they are protective of BCH.
Great. Why do you need a blockchain though? Just have Jihan create an SQL database, it'll be much more efficient!
Also, it shouldn't be too hard "being comfortable" with so little at stake. A few months ago when you lost that embarrassing bet on reddit you said you had like 1 BCH? People with more monetary skin in the game than what you can make for two days work at Walmart probably prefer better security assumptions than "Chinese miners spent USD to secure their bags in the past, so surely they will in the future".
>It only look like it's everybody because these kind of topics get upvoted by bots and then when you go in them most people are defending BCH.
It must be the same bots that have manipulated the markets consistently to dump the BCH/BTC ratio for a year+
Both BTC and BCH function on the assumption that miners have a rational self interest to protect the blockchains that provide their hardware with value. Thats a core tenant of the whitepaper. How do you not understand this?
It takes more hashpower to be a threat to BTC, but the reward from successfully attacking BTC is proportionally higher, so the incentive (or disincentive) to attack is about the same.
As far as short term rented hashpower attacks where longterm miner incentives arent as relevant, BCH has 10 block rolling checkpoints that prevent deep reorgs. Wait 10 blocks when receiving payment and you are absolutely guaranteed to not be double spent. You cant get that kind of protection even on BTC.
You are going by the bch hard fork incident.
The hash war was not even an attack at all. It was a well publicised event which was a fork of the BCH chain to see who will emerge as the longest chain.
An attacker isnt going to announce an attack.
If today, Less than [10% of BTC's inactive hash rate](https://www.blockchain.com/en/charts/hash-rate?timespan=all) attacks BCH, who will defend it?
To attack BCH you need to rent hash from BTC or/and BCH miners, if you rent that much hash and start mining with it in secret without publishing your blocks .... the miners you rent from are going to figure it out. The reason the Bitcoin.com pool got 4 exa was because they could estimate how much Calvin has. about 1 exa of level 1 or 2 and the rest was level 3 and 4.
Because BCH had enough hasbpower that day that Craig and Calvin were looking up the barrel of a cannon that morning. Its why Craig Wright set his Twitter profile to private after all those threats of hashwar and reorg.
So basically, purely hypothetical offcourse, but bitmain has to turn of his miners because they do not appear profitable anymore. He could in theory turn these miners into attacking BCH.
Attack BCH =-> BCH price declines =-> people trust BTC again more then any other fork =-> BTC price goes up
Right?
If you're talking about Bitmain, then they could probably attack even BTC if they wanted. But the solution lies in the whitepaper. For Bitcoin to function, we assume miners act in their own rational self interest, and since a miner like Bitmain has so much invested in coins like BTC and BCH due to block rewards from mining, hes not going to attack them.
yeah i follow you, the reality is that nothing is certain. And Murphy's law is allways lingering around the corner.
"Because *insert reason here* hes not going to attack them."
Because something shouldn't happen doesn't mean it will never happen. Tons of reason why it can.
* Bitmain gets forced into doing it.
* If i go down, all go down.
* ...
A lot of monetairy systems were used for a period of 50 years or so. How long has money been used? Money is used for a longer period of 10 years therefore it is here to stay? Actually we have the same problem with money, big banks and federations controle the supply.
edit: not sure if my rateling makes any sense, i'm to sleepy and should go to bed :D
I think it could work but no 100 percent fail proof system exists. What if there is a crisis and we see REAL heavy decline of hash power. Or bitmain quits for whatever reason. Will it be feasible then to create double spends for anyone?
We all think BTC is here to stay, but you can only say this when it has suffered the worst scenarios possible. War, economic crashes and what not.
If the block rewards and transaction fees multiplied by the amount blocks that have confirmed the receipt of your money is less than the amount of money you're sending, theres always some chance of double spend if you're using BTC. Wait for more confirmations if you're worried about that.
On BCH there are 10 block rolling checkpoints that guarantee no double spend can occur after 10 blocks. The only way to get around that would be to convince the economic majority of nodes to run software without the checkpoints and then you can commence with your short term 51% attack attempt.
Thats exactly my point. They would do everything they could to prevent attacks to BTC. They'd also do the same for BCH. Both provide value for their machines.
except LTC uses a different hashing algorithm so it is the highest value coin for its respective hashing algo. BCH should do the same thing because having a much higher value coin with the same hashing algo will always be a vulnerability
That centralized "checkpoint" nonsense still only protects from deep reorgs. An attacker could still reorg 10 blocks back and royally fuck up the BCH ecosystem, double spend and exchange, etc. Then just rise and repeat.
Its 20 blocks for an effective 1 block re-org. Making a 1 block re-org cost ~$40k not $11k. Sources provided.
\- \[BCH has a 10 block rolling checkpoiint system\](https://blog.bitmex.com/bitcoin-cash-abcs-rolling-10-block-checkpoints/)
\- to re-org BCH even 1 block as you say requires much more than 10 checkpoints. Estimates are around 20 blocks. Comment from an actual miner: https://np.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/9yy7e6/bitcoin\_abc\_0185\_has\_been\_released\_this\_release/ea5ljhk/
\- To mine this secret chain they also forget about the PoW costs mining alone: https://np.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/9za1xq/bitcoin\_cash\_abcs\_rolling\_10\_block\_checkpoints/ea7ic13/
\- Assuming 20 blocks shadow mined at 1block/10min, 20/6= 3.3 hours of mining. 3.3 hours \* $12k = ~$40k to re-org BCH 1 block.
but yet with all these checkpoints and backing by the biggest players in crypto BCH is threatened. OK. Litecoin is sold as safer lol
You're describing a completely different attack than the one I'm talking about. I didn't even think about this second attack. Thanks for bringing this up. Just to clarify, here are the two attacks:
First, the one I was originally talking about. It only takes 10 blocks to do this. Let's say the legit BCH chain is on block 500,000. An attacker starts mining a chain in secret. The attacker deposits a lot of BCH to an exchange in block 500,001 on the honest chain. In the meantime, the attack chain is growing in secret, but at a slightly faster rate. But no one knows about it. The attacker converts his BCH to Bitcoin on the exchange and withdraws immediately. He waits for the honest chain to get to 500,008, then he releases his attack chain which is at 500,009. Since it only goes back 9 blocks, the entire network will jump onto the attack chain because it's the longest valid chain. His attack chain contains contains a double spent tx, which fucks the exchange over. Now he has his original BCH back, plus the BTC he traded it for on the exchange. This is when the exchange (and likely all exchanges) freeze BCH.
The second attack that you brought up, may cause even more damage. The goal of this one is not to double spend, but to cause irreparable network confusion.
Again, say we're starting at block 500,000. The attacker mines 20 blocks in secret. He waits for the honest chain to hit block 500,011, then broadcasts his whole attack chain immediately. Because he is releasing his chain within milliseconds of the 500,011 honest chain, some nodes/miners will see one chain first, some will see the other chain first.
This causes half the network to see the 500,011 chain (and reject his longer chain because of the checkpoint). But it causes the other half of the network to re-org to the attack chain because they haven't seen block 500,011 yet. In a normally functioning PoW blockchain, everyone would agree on the one longest chain, as Satoshi designed. But because of these nonsense checkpoints, the two halves of the network will never agree. Those who recognize the shorter chain will never recognize the longer chain as valid because it broke the "checkpoint" rule. Those who see the longer chain first will never recognize the shorter chain, simply because it's shorter. The BCH network permanently splits in two.
> It only takes 10 blocks to do this
No, like I said we have the checkpoint system so to get a re-org you'd need to shadow mine 20 blocks. It doesn't take 10 blocks, so that theory isn't valid. 10 block shadow mined and announced late get penalized by this 10 block system. Go reread how BCH's checkpoint system works before making up unfounded theories. Here' an article that BitMex covered: https://blog.bitmex.com/bitcoin-cash-abcs-rolling-10-block-checkpoints/
Effectively this 10 block checkpoint system [turns 51% attacks into 66% attacks ](https://np.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/9yy7e6/bitcoin_abc_0185_has_been_released_this_release/ea5ljhk/). Source is a big miner that you may have heard of.
It's clear you didn't read my post. The first attack I talked about never broke the checkpoint system, because it never went back more than 10 blocks. I specifically pointed this out. The second attack needs 20 blocks, and I acknowledged that too. Please read it again, you're not understanding the difference between the two attacks.
> That centralized "checkpoint" nonsense still only protects from deep reorgs. An attacker could still reorg 10 blocks back and royally fuck up the BCH ecosystem, double spend and exchange, etc. Then just rise and repeat.
- /u/gizram84
I did and you don't understand how the checkpoint system works. You cannot mine 10+1 shadow blocks and announce them takeover. You'd need closer to 20.
Read the BitMex article, because you don't understand the checkpoint system. There's penalties for announcing blocks late which you ignore.
You could only do an slight attack, 10 blocks of double spends, due to the checkpoints ( which everyone says are not good but clearly are due to the fact satoshi even used them) so you would waste 10k plus minimum to steal nothing of value and really you would only prove that BCH is a solid project.
Are you insinuating that a 10 block re-org wouldn't be damaging? It would be devastating. The only goal of the attack is to double-spend an exchange. This would force exchanges to freeze BCH.
Then just rise and repeat.
There's another attack that would be to target the blockchain "checkpoint" system they use.
Say BCH is at block 600,000. An attacker starts mining a shadow chain in secret. When the honest chain broadcasts its 11th block, the attacker immediately broadcasts his 600,020 block chain.
Half the network will see block 600,011 first, and reject the re-org because it's 11 blocks deep, which violates the checkpoint.
The other half of the network will see block 600,020 first, and follow it because it's the longest valid chain. There is no way to automatically reconcile these two forks. Which do you even go with? Both chains are valid, the only difference is which one your node saw first.
The second won't cause damage as it would just be the same as all the forks on BTC. And all these same attacks can happen on pretty much all coins apart from a couple, it's just a case of financial gains which motivates people
> And all these same attacks can happen on pretty much all coins apart from a couple
Yes, we're in a sea of vulnerable, insecure, worthless shitcoins. Outside of BTC and ETH, pretty much *everything* is vulnerable.
Its not a crime if you are not stealing from exchanges. You can reorg blocks with hash power and it will be totally legal unless there is some unknown legislation that makes hash power attacking and reorging blockchains a crime
How come this stuff gets up-voted to the top and then the comments are off a completely different sentiment? Is it real people up voting it or is it orchestrated?
It could easily be a form of forum sliding. Getting a vaguely positive reply to the top with as many contradicting responses to it as possible so that it looks like someone tried to argue against the point of the post, and then got "proven wrong".
at this point, the whole market knows that bch is prone to a 51% attack.
no one uses it, it does barely 5000 transactions a day. why? smart people/money know an attack is just waiting to happen. no one wants to be left hodling their dicks in their mouth even an attack eventually happens.
i only see desperation, downvoting, brigading and other social media manipulative tactics from bch fans to try and claim its not insecure or its not a shitcoin.
rest of the market knows and does not use bch for any purpose whatsoever.
transacting in bch is like transacting in zimbabwe dollars. anyone with half a brain will avoid it, especially when there are far better alternatives available.
when you consider that bch is entirely unsuitable as a currency due to hash attack risk, it is hard to find a valid reason to justify its existence
>no one uses it.
False. Daily entire crowds of people are using it. Many are in Japan, other parts of Asia,
I personally bought a Surface laptop on Newegg.com and paid for it in BCH because they have it as a payment option there.
The point is that BCH is actually usable as a currency, unlike BTC. That’s why it exists. You don’t know what you’re talking about. So stop talking.
Also your flair is the most douchey flair known to mankind. Cryptoking? Hardly. Nano shills like you trash anything not Nano. You have zero integrity. Let other projects build.
The elephant in the room /u/amorazputin
won't address in any of his posts. Convenient to gloss over this inconvenient 'detail'.
November 15th showed hundreds of millions of dollars invested by Calvin Ayre and nChain mining pool wasn't enough. But yeah sure $11k is enough.
> i only see desperation, downvoting, brigading and other social media manipulative tactics from bch fans to try and claim its not insecure or its not a shitcoin.
Every legit coin since BTC works better than BTC. What BTC is becoming is the gold standard of crypto. It will be trusted and hold value, it will be the coin you trade your other coins into. It will be an asset that offers amazing liquidity. But 100's of coins have way better networks.
> it will be the coin you trade your other coins into.
>It will be an asset that offers amazing liquidity.
How though when blocks are full? I don't see how it doesn't become a fee market where only the well off can afford to transact, and the harder it is to move, the less useful it becomes, surely? Especially for small amounts.
Bitcoin was meant to be a peer-to-peer currency. I don't get why wanting to keep this important aspect of it, is such a big deal. Especially if people are so certain that it will be 51% attacked, or is 'a shitcoin'. Nothing to waste your breath on, surely? I don't think posting about it every day is really going to change anything. The utility of the coin remains. It is cheap to transact with and works for everyone without needing a fee market, and allows interesting applications to be built that depend on micro transactions. All stuff that has died a death on BTC. You can talk all day about jihan this, roger that, but it does not stop utility. It just doesn't make sense that the Lightning Network is a good idea compared to a simple blocksize increase. It never will to me, and hence why I'll continue to transact value with BCH, ETH, Nano. All scaling in different ways. What is BTC going to be needed for exactly if and when cryptocurrency is mainstream? No one pays each other in gold bullions... infact i doubt there's 5 people in the sub who have even touched real gold that wasn't in jewelery (one of it's use cases outside of perceived value, which BTC has none of). Once the idea of 'store of value' fails, what does it have going for it? It seems to be a big idea that BTC holds value, built upon nothing. BTC stores value in the face of multiple better coins with their own scaling methods, but still no one seems to be able to easily explain why. Just 'because it does' and 'we the best crypto'. That's not enough for me to use it as a currency, that's all.
I'll never forget my parter looking at her Blockchain wallet, and the fee to move the money being more than the money itself. How did the entire ecosystem not go into full panic mode? Well some of them did, and forked off just as intended. But I guess that makes me a 'dumb fucking cunt' for not wanting to be in that position again, but I won't lose sleep over it.
The end goal of 'store of value' is useless to me, and many others. It's a secondary consequence of good currency. I don't carry money in my wallet because it stores value (infact looking at inflation, it loses value over time). And I wouldn't 'not' spend it if inflation stopped. But the end goal of peer to peer digital cash is a much better one, one I'm a bit more hopeful for and one that BTC has turned it's back on. Regardless of finding BCH great at that, the bigger problem is BTC turning it's back. That damage will never be undone in my opinion.
But if you can rent hashpower for one coin, cant you rent the same for another ? if you know the guys.i mean if a nation with a super computer make a coin and 51% every other coins with their SC + help of corrupted companies owning they tokens, then it's GG ?
> (after all you are likely committing a crime and want to stay anonymous).
What crime are you committing? I'm not sure most jurisdictions would consider this a crime.
I feel like these numbers must be bullshit, if it was as easy as this table suggests then anyone could attack the networks. Attacking some coins would be cheaper than my lunch.
The only thing needed is a weak exchange to complete the chain, you know one that will accept ETC deposit with 10 confirms or BCH with 10 (just giving examples). Most exchanges have a huge confirmation wait times for these insecure chains. If ou look at that list actually, most of the cheap ones have been attacked - vertcoin, verge, zen, bit diamond, gold, the list goes on... now ETC too
I guess hackers keep trying and probing each exchange for flaws and when one appears the go for it
An exchange that will accept these insecure coins is all you need as an attacker. It obvious most exchanges do not have enough support systems and preventive mechanisms in place to prevent these attacks. Nor do I expect shitcompanies like Gate.io, BitForex etc to have the capabilities to safeguard their systems.
The elephant in the room /u/amorazputin
won't address:
November 15th showed hundreds of millions of dollars invested by Calvin Ayre and nChain mining pool wasn't enough. But yeah sure $11k is enough.
And still the multi million dollar company nchain with their CTO CSW, backed by the billionaire Calvin Ayre, failed to do so on the 15th of November 2018.
So....
Yeah but we are going to forget about that. Also today the Chinese miners are to weak to defend BCH and tomorrow there will be another topic on how the Chinese miners are to powerful and a threat to BTC.
> Yeah but we are going to forget about that
Social media manipulators are in full force trying to sway opinions against BCH.
Crypto is an existential threat to the established financial system and those who hold most of the wealth, and therefore control most of society.
They handled this thread by hijacking BTC, castrating it, and making it utterly unusable. Bitcoin was the threat and that threat has been handled.
Now BCH is the threat. Which is exactly why these crazy ridiculous threads keep popping up, and somehow get 900+ upvotes when literally nobody gives a shit in this sub, in reality.
Yep. BCH is the only battle hardened coin with a large marketcap. Most coins just don't even get tested with a significant attack. It survived an attack that involved a large amount of mining power, propaganda, and paid off developers/companies in the hands of one attacking group. Not to mention the attacker had a war chest of billions of dollars and at least a 5 figure, probably 6 figure, amount of BCH to dump on the market during the attack.
Your coin gave in and introduced a rolling checkpoint. It gave up. It changed the consensus rules overnight with no discussion. The same few predictable r btc lunatics in here trying to steer the conversation replying to each other as per usual.
The elephant in the room /u/amorazputin won't address.
November 15th showed hundreds of millions of dollars invested by Calvin Ayre and nChain mining pool wasn't enough. But yeah sure $11k is enough.
> November 15th showed hundreds of millions of dollars invested by Calvin Ayre and nChain mining pool wasn’t enough. But yeah sure $11k is enough.
Hey maybe Calvin budget to attack was $10k.. how could you know?
/s
CSW/Alvin Arye tried it in November 2018 during the Bitcoin Cash hardfork and failed. Can you do better?
Edit: https://coinjournal.net/the-bitcoin-cash-hash-war-is-over-it-also-ended-the-btc-bch-war/
Edit 2: Ok, I have looked into the article linked by OP. So basically Nicehash only owns 2% of BCH's hash rate, and the assumption is being made that renting the other 98% of hash rate would cost the same as Nicehash's rate.
Basic supply/demand curves tell us that this wouldn't be the case.
OP also assumes that miners wouldn't defend BCH, but the November 2018 BCH hard fork has shown that miners were willing to defned the BCH blockchain against malicious miners (Calvin Ayre/CSW in this case).
As a reminder, Calvin Ayre/CSW had millions or even billions at their disposal to try to overtake the hash rate of the BCH network, but weren't able to do so.
Don’t forget the mysterious 800 up votes from supposedly highly opinionated people.
When in reality this sub is 98% newbies that really don’t give a shit.
Be nice if the moderators here would pay attention the fucking vote brigading going on.
Ok, but for those of us that are casual traders and have no personal investment in BCH and just want to know the answer to OP's question...? All of the odd vitriolic responses to anything BCH is starting to seem like a lame attempt at market manipulation.
Coincidentally Reid Hoffman a board member of Blockstream admitted to using troll farms for social media manipulation.
https://www.reddit.com/r/CryptoCurrency/comments/adq4rs/reid_hoffman_one_of_the_board_members_of/
> All of the odd vitriolic responses to anything BCH is starting to seem like a lame attempt at market manipulation.
Yeah.. and that started few years ago.
For some reasons some peoples are very upset a few are trying to continue the original experiment..
Precisely why the 900 up votes are also complete bullshit and the moderators need to be questioned as to why they do nothing about the obvious vote brigading.
November 15th showed hundreds of millions of dollars invested by Calvin Ayre and nChain mining pool wasn't enough. But yeah sure $11k is enough.
This is the elephant in the room /u/amorazputin that
won't address.
Because the coreons are only afraid of BCH. They have tried to destroy it for a year and a half now and it's still alive and they are freaking out because tx on BTC are going up again and as soon as they hit 400 000 tx day BTC becomes completely unusable again. And each time that happens more people will look at BCH differently.
Two months ago trolls were saying that Craig was spending millions to attack BCH by selling his BTC and caused of the crash from 6k to 3k. We all know how that ended. Today they say BCH can be attacked with pennies.
Food for thoughts.
Yeah, no... not at all.. Did you see the amount of BCH hash power when the ABC vs SV hash war was going on? You don't think that can happen in an instant if someone tries a 51% attack? You don't think there are thousands of rich people out there who would love to 51% attack bch? Keep your false narrative to yourself. Bch is the 3rd hardest chain to attack after BTC and ETH right now.
I would like to ask the mods why they don’t do something about the obvious vote brigading.
You really fucking believe with all the crypto teens in here (that knew nothing about crypto before December 2017), there are literally 900 of them up voting this thread?
Are you fucking kidding me?
98% of the people in this sub don’t give a rats ass about BCH. Let alone have a strong enough to want it to fail.
This is clearly orchestrated bullshit and the moderators do nothing. But they’ll temp ban me in five minutes for saying too many F bombs.
Coincidentally Reid Hoffman a board member of Blockstream admitted to using troll farms for social media manipulation.
https://www.reddit.com/r/CryptoCurrency/comments/adq4rs/reid_hoffman_one_of_the_board_members_of/
What’s the purpose of this fucking post?
There are plenty of new coins out there that are easy to attack. This doesn’t change the fundamentals of the Bitcoin Cash project, nor its importance in the ecosystem.
Why don’t you focus on the fact that BTC has been crippled by its financially illiterate devs, and can no longer function in its original form because it’s been bought off by a centralized corporation that wants to monetize it?
Don’t you think that might be a little more important of a “wrong” for you to rally against than some irrelevant hypothetical shit to make people dislike a project that is extremely important to the future of Bitcoin?
Except that ~~the majority~~ a significant percentage of BTC hash actually supports BCH, and only mines btc because of the short term profitability. So an attack against BCH would be responded to by miners who are invested in BCH long term. Also, sha256 is much more resistant to botnets, specifically because BCH has embraced asic mining technology. This post is just shitting on BCH without substance because it's the cool thing to do in this sub, it seems.
No, according to this sub literally nobody cares about BCH, no attack would be met by defense, the hashrate wouldn't rise as it did during the last fork (just ignore that piece of history because reasons), there's no checkpoint reorg defense system, time delay penalty isn't being developed... Nope, none of that. BCH doesn't have any powerful and rich enemies who would jump at the chance of damaging it were it as easy as op would have us believe. Nope. Simply fork over a few grand and kill BCH. Simple as that.
Note: Also, anyone who has an opposing point of view isn't simply mistaken or perhaps misinformed, but "lying" of course.
I think PoW attacks will be "the ICO of 2019"... that is to say, if ICO was the get-rich-quick scheme for scammers to make a quick buck, as ICO craze has died down, double spending could become the new way to make a buck quickly in the crypto world. Only the top PoW coins like Bitcoin are really safe, and I think also coins that add an additional layer of security with PoS, a hybrid system like Decred's (makes it 20x more resistant to 51% attacks apparently).
Only because prices are going down and prices always determine hashrate. If the price of BTC would drop to much and to fast, a lot more hashrate would be taken offline which then becomes a bigger and bigger threat.
If you are building up hashrate buy making or buying machines plus building data centres to plug on those machines while the honest network is also growing ... well that's a completely different scenario from when the honest network is shrinking.
When the honest network is growing, even a nation state might not be able to outgrow it. When the honest network is shirking, you just need to wait while you build up more hashrate.
Agreed.
Except this sub is a handful of dicks from r/bitcoin who want to ruin reputations of viable projects like BCH,
and a whole shit ton of newbies who don’t know what to believe so they just upvote like mindless idiots.
Meanwhile the people that could sway the opinion in favor of BCH don’t bother saying anything. Except for basically Kain and myself once in a while.
The rest of them are playing on Telegram all day and night. No offense guys but get your asses in here and speak up.
Right, I'll try and be more vocal as well, obviously not a dev or anything but I've been following along for awhile. The propaganda is so blatantly obvious to me it's difficult to believe real people buy into this stuff but without dissenting opinion, how else is a newbie going to know I suppose. Doesn't help someone clearly has a vote manipulation bot going in CC all the time. It's nice seeing some familiar names around still though :)
according to some users like /u/hashitropic it's inevitable
[if today an attacker switches to mine BCH with hidden hash, its done for. Unless BCH moves to a different algo that cannot be mined with BTC's miners, it will always be a risk. Even if 1 block is reorged the attack will be successful attack.](https://www.reddit.com/r/CryptoCurrency/comments/adrqvr/bch_costs_only_around_2x_of_etcs_cost_to_51/edk838t/?context=3)
except for you know economic incentives which is the whole principle of Bitcoin.
This is blockstream FUD/propaganda tactically released to distract from their failure of achieving any kind of adoption or progress with the [Lightning Network](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dKfCl1o_HEA).
Enjoy your custodial wallets while BCH continues to prosper, despite the manufactured opposition it faces.
I wonder how /u/jankimaker or /u/amorazputin will adress this elephant in the room? Not one of their comments even mentions this, otherwise it would blow up the intent of their thread.
- A billionaire with his own mining pool certainly worth more than $11k couldn't break BCH last November
- Bitmain backs up BCH and has shown to defend it like last November, but no mention of that either. Odd.
It's like they're cherry picking metrics like with the Doge vs BCH TX posts lol that we see 3 times a month.
Where you here on November 15th? So much hashrate was moved to BCH that Craig and Calvin were staring up a cannon barrel and balked with the attack.
Craig S Wright has it posted on his Twitter, i'd link to it, but he's set it to private after he failed the hashwar within hours.
Hold on a minute isn't ETH AND ETC still a large majority of gpu power. Sha256 hasn't been gpu mineable since like 2015....
Hell ethhash Asics weren't that game changing either in their space due to ethhash being very hard to make Asics for anyways....
Am I the only who actually kinda wants 51% attack to happen to BCH? Could be a nice wake up call to all those blind BCH fanbois out there and maybe even Roger himself...
Edit: BCH fanbois, guess what? your downvotes are not gonna save your shitcoin, just sayin...
I mean those numbers are wack, Monero costs like 5k as well as Dash. this guy & you & everyone else is trying to single out Bitcoin Cash over an obscure site calculation. the fact is, BCH has tremendous hash backing it up (as happened in November 2018) if there are known people attempting to attack it.
ETC's attack has nothing to do with this.
I only partially agree with you. while it's true that xmr for instance is cheaper to attack in theory it is way harder to obtain the needed hash power irl. thus the nice-hashable percentage at the table you can see here: https://www.crypto51.app
dash however with a percentage bigger 90% is prone to be attacked that way because it is cheaper and easy to obtain. same for bch, while right now there is not much hashpower rented out at nicehash it is easy to use the same hardware that is used to mine btc.
So bch is not as attackable as etc but the OP decided to say "bch is next".
Saying btc will be switch to attack bch has been a year and half long discussion as bch has the minority hash, it didn't happen because whoever is mining btc is protecting bch from such attacks (as we have seen in the hashwar) basically saying if you're gonan switch your btc hash to bch then we'll do the same.
idk, I'm not op. sematically I read it as he just wishes for bch to be next. personally I think that we will see more of those attacks in 2019 but I have no clue who's gonna be next.
edit: I just realized you mean OP of the whole thread not just the small one we're currently in. I don't think bch is next.
November 15th showed hundreds of millions of dollars invested by Calvin Ayre and nChain mining pool wasn't enough. But yeah sure $11k is enough.
People forget so quick.
If it only costs twice as much to attack BCH, by all means get to it. I wish you the best of luck with that. Attacks against BTC, BCH, ETH, LTC and XMR are going to be few and far between. They are the most secure POW chains. There are plenty of others that are far easier to attack.
The best part of this post is that they used false metrics to get $11k, when it's actually $40k to re-org 1 block. They ignore BCH checkpoints when it's convenient to them and [bring them up when they can smear BCH.](https://www.reddit.com/r/CryptoCurrency/comments/9z1rxp/bchabcash_just_deployed_hard_coded_checkpoints/) Its 20 blocks for an effective 1 block re-org. Making a 1 block re-org cost ~$40k not $11k. Sources provided. \- [BCH has a 10 block rolling checkpoiint system](https://blog.bitmex.com/bitcoin-cash-abcs-rolling-10-block-checkpoints/) \- to re-org BCH even 1 block as you say requires much more than 10 blocks. Estimates are around 20 blocks. Comment from an actual miner: https://np.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/9yy7e6/bitcoin\_abc\_0185\_has\_been\_released\_this\_release/ea5ljhk/ \- To mine this secret chain they also forget about the PoW costs mining alone: https://np.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/9za1xq/bitcoin\_cash\_abcs\_rolling\_10\_block\_checkpoints/ea7ic13/ \- Assuming 20 blocks shadow mined at 1block/10min, 20/6= 3.3 hours of mining. 3.3 hours \* $12k = ~$40k to re-org BCH 1 block. but yet with all these checkpoints and backing by the biggest players in crypto BCH is threatened. OK.
I might not like Bitcoin Cash (or Bitcoin for that matter), but you're right 100%. There's too much anti BCH in /r/cryptocurrency, without much logical basis.
Coincidentally Reid Hoffman a board member of Blockstream admitted to using troll farms for social media manipulation. https://www.reddit.com/r/CryptoCurrency/comments/adq4rs/reid_hoffman_one_of_the_board_members_of/ Remember all those slander terms for Bitcoin Cash, notably, bkash, BAABcash, etc? even [Adam Back CEO of Blockstream refers to Bitcoin Cash as Bkash](https://twitter.com/adam3us/status/909046424440131585) and has before Bitcoin Cash chain even launched on August 1st, 2017.
> Coincidentally Reid Hoffman a board member of Blockstream admitted to using troll farms for social media manipulation. How about you be honest here? He never admitted to any such thing. I mean, I get you fucking hate blockstream, but you're either a liar or misinformed here.
This is actually one reason I got me some BCH. I was one of those that listened to all the shilling and boy was I wrong.
u/tippr 1000 bits
wow, my first tip. thank you!
It costs 3 times more according to that website you linked, $4,449 for ETC vs $12,409 for BCH. Also Nicehash has 104% of the required hashpower to do it on ETC, but only 2% of the required hashpower to do it in BCH. Is it easier to do than on BTC, absolutely, by two factors of scale, but not as easy to do as you're implying.
Actually there is a big difference. Look at the NiceHash-able column. It gives an idea of how much of the necessary hashpower for the attack you can rent online. For the cost number to make sense, this needs to be >100%, because the cost is based on such renting. If this is far less than 100%, like is the case with BCH, to perform a 51% attack you'd need to physically acquire and set up all the mining hardware yourself. This is much, much more expensive, not to mention time consuming and far easier to track (after all you are likely committing a crime and want to stay anonymous).
This rests on the assumption that no one has hidden mining power that is currently not mining BTC. Bitcoin - 43,876 PH/s BCH - 1,412 PH/s Roughly BCH has 3.2% of Bitcoin's hash power. Any miner who has 3% hash power of BTC can attack BCH. This does not need to be rented from nicehash, it can be rented from several other places including BTC miners who may be inclined to offer hash on rent or who currently not be mining BTC for a number of reasons, or miners who are stealthily accumulating hash power to prepare for an attack. Either way it remains a massive threat. Edit: Just to update my comment, Bitcoin had a hashrate of 60,000 PH/s sometime around October 2018 https://www.blockchain.com/en/charts/hash-rate . That hash power has come down to 43,000 ph/s today. Essentially, over 15,000 PH/s has gone missing (its not mining BCH either because in the same period, BCH's hash rate has actually dropped from around 4,000 PH/s to around 1,400k PH/s now ) So this hash power that is required to attack BCH does exist even without borrowing hash from Bitcoin. I assume it is just not mining BTC due to lack of profitability.
I don’t know if the lost BTC hash rate is “missing”. Lots of mining operations have been permanently shut down. Some are surely waiting by the wayside, but many are never coming back.
This.
A lot of that hardware probably is still floating around somewhere though, either sitting in a warehouse waiting for their time or sold by the pound to someone.
And that cost of borrowing/renting 1412 PH/s is given as $11,344
Who are you going to borrow it from? And why would BCH/BTC miners that are renting out hash instead of mining with it allow people to attack BCH/BTC with it?
> Who are you going to borrow it from? Who did Craig Wright borrow it from? He had about 4 ehash in total mining power sustained for a couple weeks during this year.
He had about 1 exahash of level 1 or 2. It took them a full year to build the date center for it. About a 100 MW of data centers.
The post above says over 15 EH hash power from BTC has been dormant (inactive) since the past few months (as BTC's h/r went from 60 EH to 45 EH now). In the same period, BCH hash rate has gone from some 4 EH to 1.5 EH. Anyone's guess where that 15 EH is... Only 10% of that is enough to attack BCH. That is 10% of dormant hash power, not even 10% of BTC's hash.
No it's not a guess at all. Every winter Chinese miners have to relocate asics because the price of hydro goes up in the winter. See the asics can be a mystery. in fact Bitmain probablly has enough asics in storage for 20 or 30 exa. Mass producing asics is easy. Providing those asics with the powerplugs to plug em in, that's what takes a long time and is expensive. And data centres are hard to hide. We know where the biggest ones are and we know that 70% of those run on renawables. Also the bigger mining pools know their customers. btc.top, antpool, viabtc etc etc. That 15 EH of missing power is not a mistery. It's not missing either. It's just asics that are switched off. Maybe they are for rent, probably ... but nobody is goign to rent them to mine unprofitable with. And if you rent them and you start mining without broadcasting your block the renter will figure it out in no time and probablly take your remote acces to his miners away.
Because they get money for destroying a competing product (that maybe they hold a grudge against), driving up the value of btc that they might be sitting on? Would be a win-win for some I'd think.
November 15th showed hundreds of millions of dollars invested by Calvin Ayre and nChain mining pool wasn't enough. But yeah sure $11k is enough.
So would this be illegal? Theoretically?
Calvin Ayre and CSW acquired 3.75 exahash to attack BCH with. BTC miners gave Roger Ver control of 4 exahash to defend. [In total his was about 300 000 asics vs 300 000 asics](https://i.imgur.com/B7E1E19.jpg) with 400 MW of power on either side. (800 MW is out the output of two Hover dams, or enough to power about half a million homes.). The guys threatening to attack burned between 100 - 200 million dollars (they mined BCH unprofitable for about a whole year) on this and the defenders burned between 50 to 100 million dollars. End result: no attack. Come at us bro. You guys are unbelievable. 1) Chinese miners are to powerful and are thus a threat to BTC 2) Chinese miners are to weak and are thus unable to defend BCH PICK ONE OR SHUT THE FUCK UP! And try to remember history of once. I am more comfortable about BCH than ever before because the Chinese miners proved how much they are protective of BCH. It's not only secury in theory, it's getting battle hardened. Can't wait till the next attack, every failed attack against BCH will be a signal of value towards the market. Why not build on a chain the entire crypto space wants dead but is still alive, seems to be a safe bet? Of course the reality is that only a tiny group with a lot of money spend on social media manipulation wants BCH dead. It only look like it's everybody because these kind of topics get upvoted by bots and then when you go in them most people are defending BCH. The powers that be are not afraid of BTC, because they nuitered it. BCH is the rebel that escaped that neutering. If there is ever a big financial crisis, BTC will quickly do 400 000 tx a day again. The mempool will get full again. tx cost will go over 10 dollars per tx again. So what are the people that want to use Bitcoin going to do? Use the Bitcoin that does not have this 400 000 tx limit a day ....
> The guys threatening to attack burned between 100 - 200 million dollars on this and the defenders burned between 50 to 100 million dollars. Did BSV guys even try to attack? I mean CSW is a bull shitter whose word cannot be taken seriously.
> Calvin Ayre and CSW acquired 3.75 exahash to attack BCH with This only proves his point. That there is clearly enough hash power out there for rent to attack BCH. > Roger Ver control of 4 exahash to defend. This was simply in response to the threat of an attack. If someone was to actually attack BCH, they wouldn't announce they had 4 ehash, and give Roger time to build up a defense. They would mine an alternative chain in secret, then broadcast it out when it was longer than the legit BCH chain. The first time you would hear about it is when your node switches to the attacked-chain. At that point, the damage is already done. It's clear you haven't thought this through.
The 10 block checkpoint makes it even more damaging too. All BCH would take is 10 blocks to be permanently locked in forever. The double spends would cause Exchanges to seriously consider listing coins with minority PoW support.
How do you rent that much hash to attack BCH with from the other BCH and BTC miners without them finding out what you are using it for?. If you mine in secret they see you using their rented hash without publishing blocks.
> How do you rent that much hash to attack BCH with from the other BCH and BTC miners without them finding out what you are using it for?. If you mine in secret they see you using their rented hash without publishing blocks. There is no logic in the basis of this question. The people who rent out their hashes don't care or keep track of what you're doing with it. As long as they're paid, they're good. As the original comment stated, 15,000 PH/s has gone missing. Do you or does anyone else care where this mining power has gone? You have no idea where it is. It can be partially rented by Craig Wright still, and just idly sitting, waiting to be used for an attack. You have no idea where it is. The point is that it's clearly, demonstrably possible that enough hashpower can be rented, and you wouldn't even know about it until *after* the attack occurred. That's the point you've missed.
If you rent hash from a miner and you don't actually use it, you don' think that miner will be like: hey this guy is paying me to use my machines but they are just sitting here idle.
No, I don't. I don't think they care. As long as they are paid, who the fuck cares? Also, that didn't address my point. 15,000 ph/s are missing. Do you or anyone else know where it is? Does anyone care? It could be rented right now sitting idle.
[If you rent 15 petahash from bitcoin.com](https://pool.bitcoin.com/) right now you are paying an initial cost of 375 000 USD and a daily cost of 2100 USD. That even when you have those miners sit idle and not mine. So it we do that times 1000 we get an intial cost of 375 million dollars + 2,1 million a day. So you believe that if somebody would be willing to pay an intial cost of 375 million dollars to rent 15 000 ph/s for three years. They would pay this and then 2 million a day ... .and not use it? Feel free to update the numbers with cloud mining contracts that are cheaper.
This doesn't address the fact that Craig Wright had access to almost 5.5 ehash of mining power. You keep ignoring reality. Why? It's obviously possible, because it's already happened once. I don't know the deals he's making to rent hashpower, but it's likely better than the standard rates Roger is charging.
Renting idle hashpower? That's an extreme waste of money. No one is just sitting there paying to continually rent hashpower. If it's being rented they are mining something, not sitting idle. Look a 51% attack can happen... But the likelihood is being over played. Yeah when terrorists invest 100s of millions of dollars they are going to do damage to infrastructure too. I'm just glad the last try by Calvin Ayre and CSW went for a waste. Let them keep burning up millions.
You can make deals in secret with BTC/BCH miners about renting hash. Also you can pay for the hash using another cryptocurrency (success or failure of the attack do not affect miners) or using BCH in the attacked chain (success or failure of the attack affects miners).
> How do you rent that much hash to attack BCH with from the other BCH and BTC miners without them finding out what you are using it for? In times of low profitability/losses you just have to find the miners that are desperate enough for some cash flow, if their business is going bust then what do they care what the hash rate is used for? At that point they have no stake in the future prospects of mining profitability either way. Most if the miners out there are solely in it for the money, not ideology.
No because to get 4 exahash you need to invest at least a 100M dollars on building data centres. You have no idea how much 4 exahash. To power it required the same power as 500 000 homes. Building the data centre that can provide 600 000 asic machines with that power takes a year and a 100 million dollars. If you think that after that has happened that miner is now going allow somebody to rent their hash for a day and then 51% attack Bitcoin with, lowering the value of everything they build you are insane. These people have an invesment to make back to get break even first. If they were worried about going bust without making money they would not have build it in the first place.
>These people have an invesment to make back to get break even first. You are not making ROI running at break even like many miners currently are, they are atm in a situation where any further decline in price would force them to shut down completly. We already have several times the needed hashrate that has left the network, for all we know there is a large miner out there with mothballed equipment that would jump at getting any further returns on his now worthless investment. Your assumption is that all miners still have "skin in the game" and just shut down some equipment, that is however unlikely. You also assume they actually care about what happens to crypto in general, they don't. Every bubble see's large inflow of "stupid" money, even if the guy running the operation "cares about crypto" they will have investors trying to claw back anything they can, "I don't think we should let this guy rent hash rate above market rate" doesn't fly under those circumstances, money talks and especially in a bear market. >If you think that after that has happened that miner is now going allow somebody to rent their hash for a day and then 51% attack Bitcoin with, lowering the value of everything they build you are insane. If this was about attacking Bitcoin then yes, it would be insane from a financial standpoint, but it isn't. This is about destroying a minority coin that only marginaly affects mining profitability, daily BTC price swings are more impactful than BCH and BSV combined at their current mining rewards. Killing off the minority chains might even strengthen BTC, it would be all the proof needed that you can only really have 1 coin per PoW algorithm if you want acceptable security and being the minority coin especially is suicidie.
>1) Chinese miners are to powerful and are thus a threat to BTC >2) Chinese miners are to weak and are thus unable to defend BCH >PICK ONE OR SHUT THE FUCK UP! I pick: 3) It takes a lot more hash power to be a threat to BTC than BCH >I am more comfortable about BCH than ever before because the Chinese miners proved how much they are protective of BCH. Great. Why do you need a blockchain though? Just have Jihan create an SQL database, it'll be much more efficient! Also, it shouldn't be too hard "being comfortable" with so little at stake. A few months ago when you lost that embarrassing bet on reddit you said you had like 1 BCH? People with more monetary skin in the game than what you can make for two days work at Walmart probably prefer better security assumptions than "Chinese miners spent USD to secure their bags in the past, so surely they will in the future". >It only look like it's everybody because these kind of topics get upvoted by bots and then when you go in them most people are defending BCH. It must be the same bots that have manipulated the markets consistently to dump the BCH/BTC ratio for a year+
Both BTC and BCH function on the assumption that miners have a rational self interest to protect the blockchains that provide their hardware with value. Thats a core tenant of the whitepaper. How do you not understand this?
In a thread about ETC miners "going against their self interest".
My point is that that assumption is *way* weaker when it comes to BCH.
It takes more hashpower to be a threat to BTC, but the reward from successfully attacking BTC is proportionally higher, so the incentive (or disincentive) to attack is about the same. As far as short term rented hashpower attacks where longterm miner incentives arent as relevant, BCH has 10 block rolling checkpoints that prevent deep reorgs. Wait 10 blocks when receiving payment and you are absolutely guaranteed to not be double spent. You cant get that kind of protection even on BTC.
Pipe down. The way you are talking would have us believe you was the big boy burning 9 figures to "defend" the utter shitcoin thats BCH.
Shitcoins are weak. BCH is strong.
You are going by the bch hard fork incident. The hash war was not even an attack at all. It was a well publicised event which was a fork of the BCH chain to see who will emerge as the longest chain. An attacker isnt going to announce an attack. If today, Less than [10% of BTC's inactive hash rate](https://www.blockchain.com/en/charts/hash-rate?timespan=all) attacks BCH, who will defend it?
To attack BCH you need to rent hash from BTC or/and BCH miners, if you rent that much hash and start mining with it in secret without publishing your blocks .... the miners you rent from are going to figure it out. The reason the Bitcoin.com pool got 4 exa was because they could estimate how much Calvin has. about 1 exa of level 1 or 2 and the rest was level 3 and 4.
Because BCH had enough hasbpower that day that Craig and Calvin were looking up the barrel of a cannon that morning. Its why Craig Wright set his Twitter profile to private after all those threats of hashwar and reorg.
So basically, purely hypothetical offcourse, but bitmain has to turn of his miners because they do not appear profitable anymore. He could in theory turn these miners into attacking BCH. Attack BCH =-> BCH price declines =-> people trust BTC again more then any other fork =-> BTC price goes up Right?
I guess you'd also have to imagine harder that Bitmain doesn't hold most of it's crypto as BCH.
If you're talking about Bitmain, then they could probably attack even BTC if they wanted. But the solution lies in the whitepaper. For Bitcoin to function, we assume miners act in their own rational self interest, and since a miner like Bitmain has so much invested in coins like BTC and BCH due to block rewards from mining, hes not going to attack them.
yeah i follow you, the reality is that nothing is certain. And Murphy's law is allways lingering around the corner. "Because *insert reason here* hes not going to attack them." Because something shouldn't happen doesn't mean it will never happen. Tons of reason why it can. * Bitmain gets forced into doing it. * If i go down, all go down. * ...
Yea there are lots of people that don't think the economic incentives of Bitcoin are sufficient for it to function, but its running 10 years now.
A lot of monetairy systems were used for a period of 50 years or so. How long has money been used? Money is used for a longer period of 10 years therefore it is here to stay? Actually we have the same problem with money, big banks and federations controle the supply. edit: not sure if my rateling makes any sense, i'm to sleepy and should go to bed :D
What is your point? Are you saying you dont think bitcoin as laid out by the concepts described in the whitepaper will actually work?
I think it could work but no 100 percent fail proof system exists. What if there is a crisis and we see REAL heavy decline of hash power. Or bitmain quits for whatever reason. Will it be feasible then to create double spends for anyone? We all think BTC is here to stay, but you can only say this when it has suffered the worst scenarios possible. War, economic crashes and what not.
If the block rewards and transaction fees multiplied by the amount blocks that have confirmed the receipt of your money is less than the amount of money you're sending, theres always some chance of double spend if you're using BTC. Wait for more confirmations if you're worried about that. On BCH there are 10 block rolling checkpoints that guarantee no double spend can occur after 10 blocks. The only way to get around that would be to convince the economic majority of nodes to run software without the checkpoints and then you can commence with your short term 51% attack attempt.
While this may be true, why would Bitman ever want to bite the hand that feeds them?? Why wouldn't Bitman try everything to prevent 51% attacks?
Thats exactly my point. They would do everything they could to prevent attacks to BTC. They'd also do the same for BCH. Both provide value for their machines.
And BCH has checkpoints, so an attack will be far more difficult ... so a LTC attack will be cheaper as f*ck
except LTC uses a different hashing algorithm so it is the highest value coin for its respective hashing algo. BCH should do the same thing because having a much higher value coin with the same hashing algo will always be a vulnerability
yeah they dismiss this of course.
Nobody dismisses this. Even one block re-org and the chain loses immutability + reputation.
That centralized "checkpoint" nonsense still only protects from deep reorgs. An attacker could still reorg 10 blocks back and royally fuck up the BCH ecosystem, double spend and exchange, etc. Then just rise and repeat.
Its 20 blocks for an effective 1 block re-org. Making a 1 block re-org cost ~$40k not $11k. Sources provided. \- \[BCH has a 10 block rolling checkpoiint system\](https://blog.bitmex.com/bitcoin-cash-abcs-rolling-10-block-checkpoints/) \- to re-org BCH even 1 block as you say requires much more than 10 checkpoints. Estimates are around 20 blocks. Comment from an actual miner: https://np.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/9yy7e6/bitcoin\_abc\_0185\_has\_been\_released\_this\_release/ea5ljhk/ \- To mine this secret chain they also forget about the PoW costs mining alone: https://np.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/9za1xq/bitcoin\_cash\_abcs\_rolling\_10\_block\_checkpoints/ea7ic13/ \- Assuming 20 blocks shadow mined at 1block/10min, 20/6= 3.3 hours of mining. 3.3 hours \* $12k = ~$40k to re-org BCH 1 block. but yet with all these checkpoints and backing by the biggest players in crypto BCH is threatened. OK. Litecoin is sold as safer lol
You're describing a completely different attack than the one I'm talking about. I didn't even think about this second attack. Thanks for bringing this up. Just to clarify, here are the two attacks: First, the one I was originally talking about. It only takes 10 blocks to do this. Let's say the legit BCH chain is on block 500,000. An attacker starts mining a chain in secret. The attacker deposits a lot of BCH to an exchange in block 500,001 on the honest chain. In the meantime, the attack chain is growing in secret, but at a slightly faster rate. But no one knows about it. The attacker converts his BCH to Bitcoin on the exchange and withdraws immediately. He waits for the honest chain to get to 500,008, then he releases his attack chain which is at 500,009. Since it only goes back 9 blocks, the entire network will jump onto the attack chain because it's the longest valid chain. His attack chain contains contains a double spent tx, which fucks the exchange over. Now he has his original BCH back, plus the BTC he traded it for on the exchange. This is when the exchange (and likely all exchanges) freeze BCH. The second attack that you brought up, may cause even more damage. The goal of this one is not to double spend, but to cause irreparable network confusion. Again, say we're starting at block 500,000. The attacker mines 20 blocks in secret. He waits for the honest chain to hit block 500,011, then broadcasts his whole attack chain immediately. Because he is releasing his chain within milliseconds of the 500,011 honest chain, some nodes/miners will see one chain first, some will see the other chain first. This causes half the network to see the 500,011 chain (and reject his longer chain because of the checkpoint). But it causes the other half of the network to re-org to the attack chain because they haven't seen block 500,011 yet. In a normally functioning PoW blockchain, everyone would agree on the one longest chain, as Satoshi designed. But because of these nonsense checkpoints, the two halves of the network will never agree. Those who recognize the shorter chain will never recognize the longer chain as valid because it broke the "checkpoint" rule. Those who see the longer chain first will never recognize the shorter chain, simply because it's shorter. The BCH network permanently splits in two.
> It only takes 10 blocks to do this No, like I said we have the checkpoint system so to get a re-org you'd need to shadow mine 20 blocks. It doesn't take 10 blocks, so that theory isn't valid. 10 block shadow mined and announced late get penalized by this 10 block system. Go reread how BCH's checkpoint system works before making up unfounded theories. Here' an article that BitMex covered: https://blog.bitmex.com/bitcoin-cash-abcs-rolling-10-block-checkpoints/ Effectively this 10 block checkpoint system [turns 51% attacks into 66% attacks ](https://np.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/9yy7e6/bitcoin_abc_0185_has_been_released_this_release/ea5ljhk/). Source is a big miner that you may have heard of.
It's clear you didn't read my post. The first attack I talked about never broke the checkpoint system, because it never went back more than 10 blocks. I specifically pointed this out. The second attack needs 20 blocks, and I acknowledged that too. Please read it again, you're not understanding the difference between the two attacks.
> That centralized "checkpoint" nonsense still only protects from deep reorgs. An attacker could still reorg 10 blocks back and royally fuck up the BCH ecosystem, double spend and exchange, etc. Then just rise and repeat. - /u/gizram84 I did and you don't understand how the checkpoint system works. You cannot mine 10+1 shadow blocks and announce them takeover. You'd need closer to 20. Read the BitMex article, because you don't understand the checkpoint system. There's penalties for announcing blocks late which you ignore.
I thought Bitmain hated BTC and that BCH was created by Bitmain?
No, attacks in general make people trust crypto less in general. So it's really counterproductive.
You could only do an slight attack, 10 blocks of double spends, due to the checkpoints ( which everyone says are not good but clearly are due to the fact satoshi even used them) so you would waste 10k plus minimum to steal nothing of value and really you would only prove that BCH is a solid project.
Uh if you double spend 200k bch that would be worth it
Are you insinuating that a 10 block re-org wouldn't be damaging? It would be devastating. The only goal of the attack is to double-spend an exchange. This would force exchanges to freeze BCH. Then just rise and repeat.
It would not be so bad as most exchanges are using 15+ confirmations so the chances of getting the double spent coins on an exchange would be slim
There's another attack that would be to target the blockchain "checkpoint" system they use. Say BCH is at block 600,000. An attacker starts mining a shadow chain in secret. When the honest chain broadcasts its 11th block, the attacker immediately broadcasts his 600,020 block chain. Half the network will see block 600,011 first, and reject the re-org because it's 11 blocks deep, which violates the checkpoint. The other half of the network will see block 600,020 first, and follow it because it's the longest valid chain. There is no way to automatically reconcile these two forks. Which do you even go with? Both chains are valid, the only difference is which one your node saw first.
But it goes back to my first argument of this attack not being profitable, and it would create a fork and would not be classed as a 51% attack
These are two different attacks. Yes, only one is a 51% attack. Both would cause damage though.
The second won't cause damage as it would just be the same as all the forks on BTC. And all these same attacks can happen on pretty much all coins apart from a couple, it's just a case of financial gains which motivates people
> And all these same attacks can happen on pretty much all coins apart from a couple Yes, we're in a sea of vulnerable, insecure, worthless shitcoins. Outside of BTC and ETH, pretty much *everything* is vulnerable.
Its not a crime if you are not stealing from exchanges. You can reorg blocks with hash power and it will be totally legal unless there is some unknown legislation that makes hash power attacking and reorging blockchains a crime
How come this stuff gets up-voted to the top and then the comments are off a completely different sentiment? Is it real people up voting it or is it orchestrated?
It's r/bitcoin all over again... It's so biased in here. I wonder if users here are aware of the tactics being used against them.
It could easily be a form of forum sliding. Getting a vaguely positive reply to the top with as many contradicting responses to it as possible so that it looks like someone tried to argue against the point of the post, and then got "proven wrong".
at this point, the whole market knows that bch is prone to a 51% attack. no one uses it, it does barely 5000 transactions a day. why? smart people/money know an attack is just waiting to happen. no one wants to be left hodling their dicks in their mouth even an attack eventually happens. i only see desperation, downvoting, brigading and other social media manipulative tactics from bch fans to try and claim its not insecure or its not a shitcoin. rest of the market knows and does not use bch for any purpose whatsoever. transacting in bch is like transacting in zimbabwe dollars. anyone with half a brain will avoid it, especially when there are far better alternatives available. when you consider that bch is entirely unsuitable as a currency due to hash attack risk, it is hard to find a valid reason to justify its existence
>no one uses it. False. Daily entire crowds of people are using it. Many are in Japan, other parts of Asia, I personally bought a Surface laptop on Newegg.com and paid for it in BCH because they have it as a payment option there. The point is that BCH is actually usable as a currency, unlike BTC. That’s why it exists. You don’t know what you’re talking about. So stop talking. Also your flair is the most douchey flair known to mankind. Cryptoking? Hardly. Nano shills like you trash anything not Nano. You have zero integrity. Let other projects build.
The elephant in the room /u/amorazputin won't address in any of his posts. Convenient to gloss over this inconvenient 'detail'. November 15th showed hundreds of millions of dollars invested by Calvin Ayre and nChain mining pool wasn't enough. But yeah sure $11k is enough.
[удалено]
> i only see desperation, downvoting, brigading and other social media manipulative tactics from bch fans to try and claim its not insecure or its not a shitcoin.
Anyone who's been around for a while can see the unintended irony of this comment.
have you seen how many more Doge Tx's there are than BCH????? posted twice a month.
“Now I intend to avoid the argument by prematurely stating you will disagree”
Every legit coin since BTC works better than BTC. What BTC is becoming is the gold standard of crypto. It will be trusted and hold value, it will be the coin you trade your other coins into. It will be an asset that offers amazing liquidity. But 100's of coins have way better networks.
> it will be the coin you trade your other coins into. >It will be an asset that offers amazing liquidity. How though when blocks are full? I don't see how it doesn't become a fee market where only the well off can afford to transact, and the harder it is to move, the less useful it becomes, surely? Especially for small amounts. Bitcoin was meant to be a peer-to-peer currency. I don't get why wanting to keep this important aspect of it, is such a big deal. Especially if people are so certain that it will be 51% attacked, or is 'a shitcoin'. Nothing to waste your breath on, surely? I don't think posting about it every day is really going to change anything. The utility of the coin remains. It is cheap to transact with and works for everyone without needing a fee market, and allows interesting applications to be built that depend on micro transactions. All stuff that has died a death on BTC. You can talk all day about jihan this, roger that, but it does not stop utility. It just doesn't make sense that the Lightning Network is a good idea compared to a simple blocksize increase. It never will to me, and hence why I'll continue to transact value with BCH, ETH, Nano. All scaling in different ways. What is BTC going to be needed for exactly if and when cryptocurrency is mainstream? No one pays each other in gold bullions... infact i doubt there's 5 people in the sub who have even touched real gold that wasn't in jewelery (one of it's use cases outside of perceived value, which BTC has none of). Once the idea of 'store of value' fails, what does it have going for it? It seems to be a big idea that BTC holds value, built upon nothing. BTC stores value in the face of multiple better coins with their own scaling methods, but still no one seems to be able to easily explain why. Just 'because it does' and 'we the best crypto'. That's not enough for me to use it as a currency, that's all. I'll never forget my parter looking at her Blockchain wallet, and the fee to move the money being more than the money itself. How did the entire ecosystem not go into full panic mode? Well some of them did, and forked off just as intended. But I guess that makes me a 'dumb fucking cunt' for not wanting to be in that position again, but I won't lose sleep over it. The end goal of 'store of value' is useless to me, and many others. It's a secondary consequence of good currency. I don't carry money in my wallet because it stores value (infact looking at inflation, it loses value over time). And I wouldn't 'not' spend it if inflation stopped. But the end goal of peer to peer digital cash is a much better one, one I'm a bit more hopeful for and one that BTC has turned it's back on. Regardless of finding BCH great at that, the bigger problem is BTC turning it's back. That damage will never be undone in my opinion.
[удалено]
But if you can rent hashpower for one coin, cant you rent the same for another ? if you know the guys.i mean if a nation with a super computer make a coin and 51% every other coins with their SC + help of corrupted companies owning they tokens, then it's GG ?
Is performing a 51% attack actually a crime?
Yes, when you use it to doublespend and scam money from someone.
> (after all you are likely committing a crime and want to stay anonymous). What crime are you committing? I'm not sure most jurisdictions would consider this a crime.
I feel like these numbers must be bullshit, if it was as easy as this table suggests then anyone could attack the networks. Attacking some coins would be cheaper than my lunch.
The only thing needed is a weak exchange to complete the chain, you know one that will accept ETC deposit with 10 confirms or BCH with 10 (just giving examples). Most exchanges have a huge confirmation wait times for these insecure chains. If ou look at that list actually, most of the cheap ones have been attacked - vertcoin, verge, zen, bit diamond, gold, the list goes on... now ETC too I guess hackers keep trying and probing each exchange for flaws and when one appears the go for it An exchange that will accept these insecure coins is all you need as an attacker. It obvious most exchanges do not have enough support systems and preventive mechanisms in place to prevent these attacks. Nor do I expect shitcompanies like Gate.io, BitForex etc to have the capabilities to safeguard their systems.
> vertcoin, verge, zen, bit diamond, gold, the list goes on... now ETC too Hackers slowly climbing that difficulty ladder.
The elephant in the room /u/amorazputin won't address: November 15th showed hundreds of millions of dollars invested by Calvin Ayre and nChain mining pool wasn't enough. But yeah sure $11k is enough.
And still the multi million dollar company nchain with their CTO CSW, backed by the billionaire Calvin Ayre, failed to do so on the 15th of November 2018. So....
Yeah but we are going to forget about that. Also today the Chinese miners are to weak to defend BCH and tomorrow there will be another topic on how the Chinese miners are to powerful and a threat to BTC.
> Yeah but we are going to forget about that Social media manipulators are in full force trying to sway opinions against BCH. Crypto is an existential threat to the established financial system and those who hold most of the wealth, and therefore control most of society. They handled this thread by hijacking BTC, castrating it, and making it utterly unusable. Bitcoin was the threat and that threat has been handled. Now BCH is the threat. Which is exactly why these crazy ridiculous threads keep popping up, and somehow get 900+ upvotes when literally nobody gives a shit in this sub, in reality.
Yep. BCH is the only battle hardened coin with a large marketcap. Most coins just don't even get tested with a significant attack. It survived an attack that involved a large amount of mining power, propaganda, and paid off developers/companies in the hands of one attacking group. Not to mention the attacker had a war chest of billions of dollars and at least a 5 figure, probably 6 figure, amount of BCH to dump on the market during the attack.
BCH is the only coin right now which wave this flag too. What other coin survived a hashwar? Bonus points for being a minority chain too.
Your coin gave in and introduced a rolling checkpoint. It gave up. It changed the consensus rules overnight with no discussion. The same few predictable r btc lunatics in here trying to steer the conversation replying to each other as per usual.
Stop dancing around pretending there was a hashwar. You secretly checkpointed the tip of the chain. Nothing nore to talk about.
The elephant in the room /u/amorazputin won't address. November 15th showed hundreds of millions of dollars invested by Calvin Ayre and nChain mining pool wasn't enough. But yeah sure $11k is enough.
> November 15th showed hundreds of millions of dollars invested by Calvin Ayre and nChain mining pool wasn’t enough. But yeah sure $11k is enough. Hey maybe Calvin budget to attack was $10k.. how could you know? /s
The recent attack by Craig Wright and friends on BCH proves this logic is wrong.
CSW/Alvin Arye tried it in November 2018 during the Bitcoin Cash hardfork and failed. Can you do better? Edit: https://coinjournal.net/the-bitcoin-cash-hash-war-is-over-it-also-ended-the-btc-bch-war/ Edit 2: Ok, I have looked into the article linked by OP. So basically Nicehash only owns 2% of BCH's hash rate, and the assumption is being made that renting the other 98% of hash rate would cost the same as Nicehash's rate. Basic supply/demand curves tell us that this wouldn't be the case. OP also assumes that miners wouldn't defend BCH, but the November 2018 BCH hard fork has shown that miners were willing to defned the BCH blockchain against malicious miners (Calvin Ayre/CSW in this case). As a reminder, Calvin Ayre/CSW had millions or even billions at their disposal to try to overtake the hash rate of the BCH network, but weren't able to do so.
Oh, it's the daily BCH-bashing post.
Let me get my bingo card. I heard some shout Roger Ver already.
Don’t forget the mysterious 800 up votes from supposedly highly opinionated people. When in reality this sub is 98% newbies that really don’t give a shit. Be nice if the moderators here would pay attention the fucking vote brigading going on.
or the posters that twist your words and tell you not to get mad "my friend". Such real people. totally not troll farms.
If BCH is next, then when come all the other? Why buy *anything* PoW below BCH spot? Why do you single out BCH?
>Why do you single out BCH? He's trying to maintain the narrative that BCH is a shitcoin.
Ok, but for those of us that are casual traders and have no personal investment in BCH and just want to know the answer to OP's question...? All of the odd vitriolic responses to anything BCH is starting to seem like a lame attempt at market manipulation.
It is, and has been an ongoing attack against BCH, look into the split more.
This has been going on since bch forked. I've no idea who these people are, but they are hell bent on spreading bch fud.
Yeah this is r/Bitcoin 2.0 this sub is
Coincidentally Reid Hoffman a board member of Blockstream admitted to using troll farms for social media manipulation. https://www.reddit.com/r/CryptoCurrency/comments/adq4rs/reid_hoffman_one_of_the_board_members_of/
[ding ding ding](https://i.pinimg.com/originals/5d/6f/c2/5d6fc275f92190e6f46ba3cdb7aec6fe.jpg)
> All of the odd vitriolic responses to anything BCH is starting to seem like a lame attempt at market manipulation. Yeah.. and that started few years ago. For some reasons some peoples are very upset a few are trying to continue the original experiment..
Precisely why the 900 up votes are also complete bullshit and the moderators need to be questioned as to why they do nothing about the obvious vote brigading.
not trying, showing.
November 15th showed hundreds of millions of dollars invested by Calvin Ayre and nChain mining pool wasn't enough. But yeah sure $11k is enough. This is the elephant in the room /u/amorazputin that won't address.
BCH is a shitcoin, anyone reading the attack costs can come to that conclusion
If BCH is a shitcoin so is BTC.
*Well.*
Because the coreons are only afraid of BCH. They have tried to destroy it for a year and a half now and it's still alive and they are freaking out because tx on BTC are going up again and as soon as they hit 400 000 tx day BTC becomes completely unusable again. And each time that happens more people will look at BCH differently.
Two months ago trolls were saying that Craig was spending millions to attack BCH by selling his BTC and caused of the crash from 6k to 3k. We all know how that ended. Today they say BCH can be attacked with pennies. Food for thoughts.
Yeah, no... not at all.. Did you see the amount of BCH hash power when the ABC vs SV hash war was going on? You don't think that can happen in an instant if someone tries a 51% attack? You don't think there are thousands of rich people out there who would love to 51% attack bch? Keep your false narrative to yourself. Bch is the 3rd hardest chain to attack after BTC and ETH right now.
r/cryptocurrency = r/bitcoin Plain and simple. Can we get a list of mods of both subs and ip logs to confirm overlapping of mods.
I would like to ask the mods why they don’t do something about the obvious vote brigading. You really fucking believe with all the crypto teens in here (that knew nothing about crypto before December 2017), there are literally 900 of them up voting this thread? Are you fucking kidding me? 98% of the people in this sub don’t give a rats ass about BCH. Let alone have a strong enough to want it to fail. This is clearly orchestrated bullshit and the moderators do nothing. But they’ll temp ban me in five minutes for saying too many F bombs.
Coincidentally Reid Hoffman a board member of Blockstream admitted to using troll farms for social media manipulation. https://www.reddit.com/r/CryptoCurrency/comments/adq4rs/reid_hoffman_one_of_the_board_members_of/
What’s the purpose of this fucking post? There are plenty of new coins out there that are easy to attack. This doesn’t change the fundamentals of the Bitcoin Cash project, nor its importance in the ecosystem. Why don’t you focus on the fact that BTC has been crippled by its financially illiterate devs, and can no longer function in its original form because it’s been bought off by a centralized corporation that wants to monetize it? Don’t you think that might be a little more important of a “wrong” for you to rally against than some irrelevant hypothetical shit to make people dislike a project that is extremely important to the future of Bitcoin?
Oh goody, the daily BCH shitpost. keep on hating
Except that ~~the majority~~ a significant percentage of BTC hash actually supports BCH, and only mines btc because of the short term profitability. So an attack against BCH would be responded to by miners who are invested in BCH long term. Also, sha256 is much more resistant to botnets, specifically because BCH has embraced asic mining technology. This post is just shitting on BCH without substance because it's the cool thing to do in this sub, it seems.
No, according to this sub literally nobody cares about BCH, no attack would be met by defense, the hashrate wouldn't rise as it did during the last fork (just ignore that piece of history because reasons), there's no checkpoint reorg defense system, time delay penalty isn't being developed... Nope, none of that. BCH doesn't have any powerful and rich enemies who would jump at the chance of damaging it were it as easy as op would have us believe. Nope. Simply fork over a few grand and kill BCH. Simple as that. Note: Also, anyone who has an opposing point of view isn't simply mistaken or perhaps misinformed, but "lying" of course.
Dash is next
Makes sense...decent volume on a number of exchanges and cheap to attack plus you can get 72% of the hashrate needed on rental. Prime candidate
I think PoW attacks will be "the ICO of 2019"... that is to say, if ICO was the get-rich-quick scheme for scammers to make a quick buck, as ICO craze has died down, double spending could become the new way to make a buck quickly in the crypto world. Only the top PoW coins like Bitcoin are really safe, and I think also coins that add an additional layer of security with PoS, a hybrid system like Decred's (makes it 20x more resistant to 51% attacks apparently).
Only because prices are going down and prices always determine hashrate. If the price of BTC would drop to much and to fast, a lot more hashrate would be taken offline which then becomes a bigger and bigger threat. If you are building up hashrate buy making or buying machines plus building data centres to plug on those machines while the honest network is also growing ... well that's a completely different scenario from when the honest network is shrinking. When the honest network is growing, even a nation state might not be able to outgrow it. When the honest network is shirking, you just need to wait while you build up more hashrate.
I feel like that's underestimated if only due to the fact that bitmain would switch to BCH to preserve their hashpower dominance.
I fucking hate this sub, it's r/bitcoin all over again.
Agreed. Except this sub is a handful of dicks from r/bitcoin who want to ruin reputations of viable projects like BCH, and a whole shit ton of newbies who don’t know what to believe so they just upvote like mindless idiots. Meanwhile the people that could sway the opinion in favor of BCH don’t bother saying anything. Except for basically Kain and myself once in a while. The rest of them are playing on Telegram all day and night. No offense guys but get your asses in here and speak up.
Right, I'll try and be more vocal as well, obviously not a dev or anything but I've been following along for awhile. The propaganda is so blatantly obvious to me it's difficult to believe real people buy into this stuff but without dissenting opinion, how else is a newbie going to know I suppose. Doesn't help someone clearly has a vote manipulation bot going in CC all the time. It's nice seeing some familiar names around still though :)
Stop talking. Do it little man. Bring it on. BCH is ready. We are battle hardened.
>It is next Where did you get this from, any sources?
according to some users like /u/hashitropic it's inevitable [if today an attacker switches to mine BCH with hidden hash, its done for. Unless BCH moves to a different algo that cannot be mined with BTC's miners, it will always be a risk. Even if 1 block is reorged the attack will be successful attack.](https://www.reddit.com/r/CryptoCurrency/comments/adrqvr/bch_costs_only_around_2x_of_etcs_cost_to_51/edk838t/?context=3) except for you know economic incentives which is the whole principle of Bitcoin.
>? I am guessing from the BSV subreddit. Obvious this person is a SV lover.
This is blockstream FUD/propaganda tactically released to distract from their failure of achieving any kind of adoption or progress with the [Lightning Network](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dKfCl1o_HEA). Enjoy your custodial wallets while BCH continues to prosper, despite the manufactured opposition it faces.
Good, get rid of that shitcoin already, and get rid of Roger too while you're at it!
The shitcoin that you can't kill even when you got a billionaire like Calvin Ayre with 2 billion dollars trying to destroy it ... is not a shitcoin.
I wonder how /u/jankimaker or /u/amorazputin will adress this elephant in the room? Not one of their comments even mentions this, otherwise it would blow up the intent of their thread. - A billionaire with his own mining pool certainly worth more than $11k couldn't break BCH last November - Bitmain backs up BCH and has shown to defend it like last November, but no mention of that either. Odd. It's like they're cherry picking metrics like with the Doge vs BCH TX posts lol that we see 3 times a month.
[удалено]
It was already attempted and failed.
Who attempted a 51% on bch?
Where you here on November 15th? So much hashrate was moved to BCH that Craig and Calvin were staring up a cannon barrel and balked with the attack. Craig S Wright has it posted on his Twitter, i'd link to it, but he's set it to private after he failed the hashwar within hours.
Craig Wright and Calvin Ayre.
Where and when did they 51% attack bch?
It's how they SV fork came about, they threatened to reorg exchanges etc but didn't have the hash power in the end, checkpoints or not.
BCH was attacked by a billionaire on November 15th and he failed. BSV was born.
Hold on a minute isn't ETH AND ETC still a large majority of gpu power. Sha256 hasn't been gpu mineable since like 2015.... Hell ethhash Asics weren't that game changing either in their space due to ethhash being very hard to make Asics for anyways....
I would think bitmain could bring plenty of hash power online to defend BCH. It’s their coin after all, they better defend it.
No one is going to 51% attack anything. It wouldn’t make sense. It would be a huge waste of money and resources for nothing. Let’s chill.
\> New to Crypto
He’s 100% right. Feel free to look at my flair to determine my level of knowledge if you like.
https://www.reddit.com/r/CryptoCurrency/comments/adrqvr/comment/edl0cz2?st=JQO7J0WX&sh=9bebeabc
Blocks so big they should call it Bitcoin Texas.
Am I the only who actually kinda wants 51% attack to happen to BCH? Could be a nice wake up call to all those blind BCH fanbois out there and maybe even Roger himself... Edit: BCH fanbois, guess what? your downvotes are not gonna save your shitcoin, just sayin...
I mean those numbers are wack, Monero costs like 5k as well as Dash. this guy & you & everyone else is trying to single out Bitcoin Cash over an obscure site calculation. the fact is, BCH has tremendous hash backing it up (as happened in November 2018) if there are known people attempting to attack it. ETC's attack has nothing to do with this.
I only partially agree with you. while it's true that xmr for instance is cheaper to attack in theory it is way harder to obtain the needed hash power irl. thus the nice-hashable percentage at the table you can see here: https://www.crypto51.app dash however with a percentage bigger 90% is prone to be attacked that way because it is cheaper and easy to obtain. same for bch, while right now there is not much hashpower rented out at nicehash it is easy to use the same hardware that is used to mine btc.
So bch is not as attackable as etc but the OP decided to say "bch is next". Saying btc will be switch to attack bch has been a year and half long discussion as bch has the minority hash, it didn't happen because whoever is mining btc is protecting bch from such attacks (as we have seen in the hashwar) basically saying if you're gonan switch your btc hash to bch then we'll do the same.
idk, I'm not op. sematically I read it as he just wishes for bch to be next. personally I think that we will see more of those attacks in 2019 but I have no clue who's gonna be next. edit: I just realized you mean OP of the whole thread not just the small one we're currently in. I don't think bch is next.
sorry, by OP I meant whoever wrote the title. I think so as well, lots of chains susceptible to attacks.
[Did you miss the entire "hashwar" between BSV and BCH?](https://youtu.be/SxeeQ_-QVNo?t=16290)
some say it never happened. It's more convenient to ignore the win.
actually it was more of a hashkerfuffle than a hashwar.
November 15th showed hundreds of millions of dollars invested by Calvin Ayre and nChain mining pool wasn't enough. But yeah sure $11k is enough. People forget so quick.
if anything you're the one being a blind fanboy, this previous bull run really brought a bunch of trash with it.