If you didn't buy Bitcoin at $40,000...

[aussenseiter]

Originally Posted by Botten [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

On a blockchain, there is a constant risk of a 51% attack

Ayup

[Homesteaded]

Crypto is a CIA OP

[Patriam1066]

“ On a blockchain, there is a constant risk of a 51% attack which means It is a situation when a miner or group of them gets more than 50% of the networkÂ’s mining hash rate control. While in control, an ill-natured group can reverse the transaction that is completed, pause the transaction in process, double spend coins, prevent new transactions from getting validation and much more. Nevertheless, this attack is only a risk to recently hard-forked networks and new blockchains.”


What does this part mean?

[Castle2.0]

Originally Posted by Patriam1066 [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

“ On a blockchain, there is a constant risk of a 51% attack which means It is a situation when a miner or group of them gets more than 50% of the networkÂ’s mining hash rate control. While in control, an ill-natured group can reverse the transaction that is completed, pause the transaction in process, double spend coins, prevent new transactions from getting validation and much more. Nevertheless, this attack is only a risk to recently hard-forked networks and new blockchains.”


What does this part mean?

It means the poster (likely Botten - only person blocked whose content I can't see) is an idiot.

A couple of things to note:

• Go calculate how much hardware, infrastructure and electric you need to 'attack' the network. Do basic financial math and realize you make way more playing by the rules.
• You need more than 51%. If you aren't consistently winning blocks, it fails. Any block you get behind, especially early on, makes it exponentially difficult to come back and have the longest chain. I think the true number is 70-80%+.
• If you do manage this infeasible attack. You can't spend other people's coins. You can't reverse the previous blocks unless you want to spend your time, energy, hardware doing that, but then you lost the longest chain and it's game over anyway and any 'reversals' mean nothing because you're not the longest chain any more.
• People realize there is a bad actor, ignore their chain and keep building on the main chain.

Looks like Botten got just enough rope to hang himself. Go get educated on crypto, fool.

Bitcoin halving in 107 days.

Buckle up.

[Duik]

I am the Halvinger Of Doooooom!

[Patriam1066]

Originally Posted by Castle2.0 [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

It means the poster (likely Botten - only person blocked whose content I can't see) is an idiot.

A couple of things to note:

• Go calculate how much hardware, infrastructure and electric you need to 'attack' the network. Do basic financial math and realize you make way more playing by the rules.
• You need more than 51%. If you aren't consistently winning blocks, it fails. Any block you get behind, especially early on, makes it exponentially difficult to come back and have the longest chain. I think the true number is 70-80%+.
• If you do manage this infeasible attack. You can't spend other people's coins. You can't reverse the previous blocks unless you want to spend your time, energy, hardware doing that, but then you lost the longest chain and it's game over anyway and any 'reversals' mean nothing because you're not the longest chain any more.
• People realize there is a bad actor, ignore their chain and keep building on the main chain.

Looks like Botten got just enough rope to hang himself. Go get educated on crypto, fool.

Bitcoin halving in 107 days.

Buckle up.

Yeah it was Botten, I didn’t want to quote him because he typed a novel and backspacing would’ve taken at least 20 seconds

[Botten]

Originally Posted by Patriam1066 [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Yeah it was Botten, I didn’t want to quote him because he typed a novel and backspacing would’ve taken at least 20 seconds

It is important to know two things.

1. Castle 2.0 ignores anyone he doesn't agree with this has happened in the past.

Example one: https://www.project1999.com/forums/s...re#post3529342

Example two: https://www.project1999.com/forums/s...re#post3462666

Example Three... Four... etc
https://www.project1999.com/forums/s...re#post3462346

ShucklesLuckle
Greendog
Whale_biologist
magretarss
Tunabros
etc

2. He has a second account Zati to read those he ignores - [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

And has been wrong about Patriam1066 [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

https://www.project1999.com/forums/s...postcount=1962

https://www.project1999.com/forums/s...postcount=1964

[Botten]

...we recently saw what we think are counterattacks on Bitcoin Gold …

Forbes's "Bitcoin Rival Suffers Devastating Attack" reviews DCI's James Lovejoy's discovery of a '51% Attack'

“Bitcoin gold, a relatively minor cryptocurrency that split off from the original bitcoin blockchain in late 2017, has suffered a so-called 51% attack resulting in over $72,000 worth of bitcoin gold tokens being double spent.

A 51% attack can occur when malicious cryptocurrency miners take control of tokens' blockchain and is the second time it's now happened to bitcoin gold which saw $18 million worth of bitcoin gold stolen in May 2018.

The price of bitcoin gold, which ranks as the 36th most valuable cryptocurrency according to CoinMarketCap data, jumped following reports of the attack, moving counterintuitively considering the seriousness of an attack of this type and suggesting the market for smaller tokens is still far from maturity…”

Note: Bitcoin gold and Bitcoin aren't the same thou.

51% attack is not so likely on a lot of cryptocurrency... sure. But it does exist.

[Patriam1066]

I still don’t understand what the 51% attack means

[aussenseiter]

Originally Posted by Patriam1066 [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

I still don’t understand what the 51% attack means

A 51% attack is a really good name for direct democracy or popular vote.

Castle points out it's not feasible for Bitcoin for technology reasons.