They have been since the 1930s. Consumer banks create money when they issue loans, and most paper money in history has actually been a gold certificate that was only backed by a percentage rate, just like the commercial banks use USD to do now.
@@anyoneyousee7772 1930s? You mean 1911 when they were founded and began printing money as a debt instrument no longer tied to silver and requiring the government make them the sole printer.
@@anyoneyousee7772 ah yes, that little know heist... and just after they stole all the money in 1929 and right before the Nazis stole most of Europes.... lovely bunch they are :)
Just wanted to say I appreciate hustle, making good videos this consistently must be taxing. Just falling into the /g/ rabbit hole after a decade of willful tech illiteracy and this channel has been a goldmine
The big governments would probably try to pull a stunt like this in the future, probably when there fiat currency is at risk of being abandoned by there own people.
Was just talking about this with my friends. I fear chinese mining operations could potentially take over bitcoin and other coins due to their cheap electric and massive mining operations.
This is the reason coins that you can't mine and have real use case will be the kings long term. Well i invest in everything, but still has most of it in coins that you can't mine and have utility, i usually pit my profits in these.
This reminds me of an article in 2017. At the last part of the article. They were talking about China investing so heavily into Bitcoin. And the quote was and I’m paraphrasing here: well even after the last crash the Chinese have increased their investing in to mining. Their rate of investment. It doesn’t really make sense. They either believe in the tech or know something we don’t.” That quote which was from someone deep in mining at the time. It kind of scares me when I see this.
@@gjoebeck If the CCP thinks that they can _somehow_ devalue the USD or EUR further by burning their crypto mines, they would. It's all about "saving face" in the current CCP government that wants to be known as the 2nd Coming of Mao.
@@TheRibbonRed Yes, exactly and it wouldn't be difficult for the CCP to acquire the hardware to pull this off. All they would have to do is wave the gulag in front their crypto-mining citizens and all of a sudden, the CCP has majority control of the bitcoin
1:02 The Federal Reserve can only create (bank) reserves, it does not have the power to create currency. Banks are the only entities (in the USA) that can create currency, via credit. Even the stimulus checks, which are loaned to the US treasury in the form of reserves from Federal Reserve, are not creating currency because they get paid back and eliminated, the same as bank reserves.
@@Nerd2Ninja It literally says "The system is secure as long as honest nodes collectively control more CPU power than any cooperating group of attacker nodes." in the first paragraph of a paper. But it was written before crypto was big (obviously), so the author didn't expand on that thought, because there was no empirical data
I notice your description has the "%" in front of the integer. I do that some what frequently myself. It's kinda like declaring a variable. I actually think that's the more rational method of defining a percentage.
% is not a variable though and it has a very specific function. It's a symbol that literally means "per cent". 51% is 51 per cent (51 for every 100). Instead of writing 51/100 every time, we shorten it to 51% because it's much simpler and we use that enough to warrant this change as a standard.
Maybe that feels common, when you are from a country, where they call "50 Dollars" $50. At least it's common in Germany to put the currency after the count (50$, 50€, 50¥, etc.). And when talking about common units (feet, meters, liters) almost everyone would probably put the unit afterwards. Besides that, it's just the way you speak. It's the same order. You don't say "Percentage 50" as you don't say "Dollar 50". The fact, that it reminds you of declaring a variable would rather be an argument against using this notation. I would just put the unit after the number, no matter what the unit is, for consistency reasons.
A few corrections: 1. Most of the work that the miners are doing is actually not validating transactions. It's work for the sake of work (yes actually). They do have to validate the transactions but they are not the only ones doing that. Every full node (ideally a full node is equivalent to a user) validates transactions. If a miner mines a block with an invalid transaction it gets rejected by the network. 2. We don't choose the chain with the most transactions. We choose the one with the most proof of work.
If all people don't verify 100% of their wallet there will be double spending. Which makes a 51% attack that does "not" actually need 51%, possible. I would be alot more scared if i had bitcoin, now I'm only scared if financial institutions get too invested into crypto.
@@davidjohansson1416 why do you need less than 51 percent for this attack? The miners say the right block, because of the length of the chain. You need a longer chain than they can build, and for that you need more than 50 % of the hashrate.
It is well within the US and Chinese governments’ ability to do this. It’s just a matter of *when* one of them decides it is in their interest. I’ve never really understood why the smart money isn’t concerned about this. Just get off the ship before the torpedo hits?
Supposing that they can do it, it would cost a lot of money and who’s down to use tax dollar to buy mining equipment and electricity, no one. Passing that barrier, it would take a lot of time to catch up to the current chain which would leave space for people figuring it out and taking countermeasures
@@jetmirberisha8201 You're severely underestimating the government ability to squander tax payer's money. They could easily create a new program to that end and burry it in the 969th page an omnibus bill and get it to pass and nobody would be the wiser. If you only knew how bad things really are.
This seems like it would be very plausible to happen if 3-4 pools with 10-15% hash rate each came together.. especially since a lot of massive mining operations are in china. It’s not far fetched to think the Chinese government would “force” **private** mining operations to do something like this
The other thing that banks have to their advantage is if someone double-spend worst comes to worst they just eat it themselves and write it off, thus nullifying the potential problem.
1:05 wrong, private banks create money when they loan with interest. the "check" for this is they have to borrow some money from the fed to "afford" the loan, but in practice its 0.1% of the loan or something like that, in terms of creating money the fed is actually a tiny player compared to private banks.
@Finxert but it all goes on the banks' books (apart from that 100$ or whatever). they loan the 200k out of thin air and get back that plus interest, which every single time outweighs the fed fee, by design, otherwise they wouldnt make (as much) of a profit (they also invest but loans are the biggest source of their money afaik). i understand what youre saying, that no fed = no private bank shekels, but a) theyd make themselves another loophole to fractional reserve lend anyway, and b) there wouldnt be a fed fee if they had their way, its only there so it *looks* like private banks didnt create 97% or so of the money
Consider this: 81 percent of the Bitcoin blockchain is concentrated in China. China has plans to nationalize it's biggest companies, and there's a lot of money to be made in Bitcoin.
One more way to fight the 51% attack is the Proof of Stake Consensus. Instead of having 51% of all the Computing Power of the network, Proof of Stake would require you to have 51% of all the Cryptocurrency in existence (whichever one you are trying to take over) but then using Proof of Stake would definitely bring down the amount of value miners receive for mining.
@@GodModeMaker There's 2 main implementations I know of. Ticket voting or nodes. The general idea is that you need to PoS to validate the mined blocks so doing a 51% attack alone isn't enough, it could be a 75% attack, or 90% it still wouldn't work unless you have enough of the PoS to validate enough of those mined blocks to amount to 51% of your mined blocks being validated by yourself. At least in the ticket system it's easier to illustrate this example.If you have exactly 51% of both the PoW and PoS, your power over that blockchain would be equivalent to a 25-26% attack on a pure PoW blockchain. 51% is basically slightly more then half of all blocks mined being mined by you, and 51% of all tickets means of the blocks you mine, about half of those will be validated in your attack. You would need 100% of all the PoW mining and 51% of all the tickets, or vice versa to pull off the attack. Alternatively a 71% and 72% attack on both PoW and PoS would work (0.71 * 0.72 = 0.5112).
@@GodModeMaker Horizen and Dash use nodes. Decred uses tickets. There's pros and cons to each method but none of these coins have split off in hardforks or suffered 51% attacks with the exception of Horizen before the PoS nodes were implemented. There could be more hybrid coins in the top 100 but those are the only 3 I know of.
Can't they build something into the protocol that detects how large these pools are? Basically, the larger you are, the less trustworthy you become. So blocks that are arriving from a pool that is too large reach a point where they can no longer be trusted. This seems like a very fundamental problem that should have already been factored into the Bitcoin code a long time ago. I presume newer coins have already thought of this and have mitigated the issue using other techniques?
@@timeTegus except in the video itself, it has been stated that over 60% of Bitcoin miners are in China. They're not using "weak GPUs" there when they *make* the GPUs most use to mine.
According to SDF (The foundation who develops Stellar); no: www.stellar.org/learn/blockchain-basics "On Stellar, such attacks are impossible, by design. Submitting bad data in real-time also doesn’t work because eventually your selfish intention will be voted down and the network will agree on the right data." Rather than using a proof of work system (mining to verify transactions), it uses the Stellar Consensus Protocol which means that a group of computers on the Stellar network uses a Gossip like protocol ( en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gossip_protocol ) to agree on whether a transaction's valid. You can learn more about it from Stellar's official website: www.stellar.org/learn/intro-to-stellar
Stellar isn't PoW mining like BTC is. Basically almost all PoW mining coins are at risk of mining centralization. On the other hand PoS pay all transaction fees to stake holders and usually only the ones who have large stacks so it becomes a game where the 1% gets richer by doing nothing bu sitting on their mountains of gold and over time the 1% becomes the 0.1% and 0.01% who own the majority of the wealth. Hybrid PoW and PoS coins seem to be the best solution. Coins like Horizen, Dash, and Decred would be the biggest 3 examples I'm aware of.
interesting video I actually always had the question in the back of my mind of "If other people are doing the verification of transactions what if enough people got together and tried to fck up the system" not knowing everything about the blockchain I just assumed there must be some kind of protection in place to stop that from happening guess I was wrong kind of scary to think about actually
Not gonna happen for many years, but eventually, quantum computers will be more economic for hashing than transistor computers, and not far after that, they will be able to easily dominate crypto mining if someone with the required resources desides to do that.
Thanks for your comment, Write my broker Arthur Rafael Aybar on WhatsApp to earn huge in bitcoin trading for,his strategies are top notch,he's really making me huge gains with his strategies in trading
I wonder if one could pull that off with less money by using cloud services - meaning one wouldn't have to actually buy all that hardware, but would essentially just rent it.
To me it seems like there would be a lot of statistical variability as the 51 percent hacker is overtaking the current blockchain. Then eventually when the attacker is far enough ahead these shenanigans could start reliably. Perhaps one in 10 blocks to the other party would be enough to disrupt this process.
They do, but then the question becomes "what is malicious?" Right now, the assumption is that the history that the most people agree on is the truth. Without that assumption, how do you know what's true?
You would actually need over 3.1 million RTX 3090's to get 51% with the numbers presented. x/(452 TH/s + x) = 0.51 x = 0.51*452 TH/s / (1-0.51) ≈ 470 TH/s 470000000 MH/s / 150 MH/s ≈ 3100000
I like the "not allowed to create money out of thin air only the Federal reserve can do that" that made me laugh I liked it because it's true and so simply drives the point of what is money home.
I believe any proof-of-work coin has this same issue, including monero. The one possible advantage that it might have over btc is that the randomx algorithm is immune to ASICs and specialized hardware.
Cryptocurrencies consume more electricity than some small to medium countries, all lost doing no real work. it's horribly inefficient from a grid/climate perspective.
there is another way to do that... if most people use an certain operating system (eg: windows) and you find an security hole on it, and use it to hack into their computers, and they are mining bitcoin, then you can use it as your own private mining network. while this might seems harder to do than just purchasing an bunch or machines, it can also be cheaper and get unoticed until its too later.
Q-Day could do this amount of damage. I made enough mining to pull out forever, less than a grand after hardware and power. Once I noticed a dip with inflation last year I cashed out to later realize what a scheme market crypto has become.
How would all Teslas computing power measure up to this? They have say 1million cars each having 2 chips since about the 250k mark, couldn't elon say put 10-25-30% of every tesla towards its own pool?
Hey Chris The Bitcoin family has proved to be very productive , No matter the knowledge gathered I stake my coins with my fellow colleagues whose a broker Arthur Rafael Aybar ,his strategies are top notch,he's really making me huge gains with his strategies in trading
I hate the name "51%-Attack". It does not need to be exactly 51%. It just needs to be more than 50%. But the more you have, the more likely the attack is to succeed. The attack could theoretically even succeed with not even 50%, but you'd have to get lucky and probably won't be able to sustain it for long enough to cause any damage. I'd just call it "50%-Attack" or "50%+-Attack" or "50+%-Attack" or maybe something totally different like "Majority-Attack".
Federal bank will not allow other unlegit , illegal pools thst does not recognised from them. Even cental bank investigation officers should always investigate the pools. If not they will not allow to exchange pools each other and money too.
sounds crazy at first but if you think about it; investing let's say 1B USD on mining equipment and infrastructure (if that's enough to get 51% of Bitcoins' hashrate it can dominate any other minor crypto hashrate), pick a cryptocurrency and double spend on it (i.e. buy supercars, gold, assets, exchange for cash) let it crash then move to another crypto and repeat, you will end up with a shit ton of Teslas/Ferraris land, cash and gold on fiscal paradise and a shitload of 3090s to sell
If someone gets 51% to crash Bitcoin (which is the largest), couldn't they subsequently crash all other cryptocurrencies by switching their mining rig to Etherium and litecoin etc? Like a rich anarchist or something. That sounds pretty bad
You can't mine ETH with bitcoin ASICs, and you can't effectively mine Bitcoin using GPUs because ASICs are too fast. Many cryptos are intentionally designed to only be minable using GPUs or CPUs to allow the general public that happens to own gaming PCs to mine the and avoid centralization like with Bitcoin and ASICs but the downside is that it creates massive demand for GPUs during crypto booms.
If I can be honest for one second. I think the current way cryptocurrencies are used should just die. I'm not saying cryptocurrencies in general needs to die I'm just saying thet the way that they're being used currently should die.
“Only the federal reserve is allowed to do that” lol
It's funny because it's true. 😔
Duah.
according to bloomberg, yes
"... and thats a good thing"
Not really, banks create to, but with central banks allowing.
I laughed way harder than I should’ve.
Creating money out of thin air
*Looking at federal reserve devaluing the dollar*
That's the point, To control you even more.
They have been since the 1930s. Consumer banks create money when they issue loans, and most paper money in history has actually been a gold certificate that was only backed by a percentage rate, just like the commercial banks use USD to do now.
@@anyoneyousee7772 1930s? You mean 1911 when they were founded and began printing money as a debt instrument no longer tied to silver and requiring the government make them the sole printer.
@@Bagginsess Yeah I was thinking of the gold confiscation in the depression
@@anyoneyousee7772 ah yes, that little know heist... and just after they stole all the money in 1929 and right before the Nazis stole most of Europes.... lovely bunch they are :)
Just wanted to say I appreciate hustle, making good videos this consistently must be taxing. Just falling into the /g/ rabbit hole after a decade of willful tech illiteracy and this channel has been a goldmine
The big governments would probably try to pull a stunt like this in the future, probably when there fiat currency is at risk of being abandoned by there own people.
their*
This sentence is so delusional it's funny
Was just talking about this with my friends. I fear chinese mining operations could potentially take over bitcoin and other coins due to their cheap electric and massive mining operations.
This is the reason coins that you can't mine and have real use case will be the kings long term. Well i invest in everything, but still has most of it in coins that you can't mine and have utility, i usually pit my profits in these.
China will same is from $hitcoin
#BanBitcoinSaveEnergy
@@UmbraWeiss NANO
Bitcoin was flawed from the very start, it is just most popular because it i the first one.
Except CCP IS demanding and ceasing btc mining operations there, as of yesterday, June 18, so, there is that rebuttal.
This reminds me of an article in 2017. At the last part of the article. They were talking about China investing so heavily into Bitcoin. And the quote was and I’m paraphrasing here: well even after the last crash the Chinese have increased their investing in to mining. Their rate of investment. It doesn’t really make sense. They either believe in the tech or know something we don’t.” That quote which was from someone deep in mining at the time. It kind of scares me when I see this.
how did it take me this long to realize he just screen records powerpoint instead of editing
that is a smart move , I didn't realize either
He is probably not using Powerpoint it is probably Impress.
@@michaellisanti1522 prolly
@@michaellisanti1522 on linux I'd use latex-beamer and pdf presenter console
Maybe we are bound to witness that 51% attack someday
Highly doubtful, even if you theoretically controlled that much hashrate it would be against your own interests to do a 51% attack.
I believe ETC has been hit a few times this way.
@@gjoebeck If the CCP thinks that they can _somehow_ devalue the USD or EUR further by burning their crypto mines, they would.
It's all about "saving face" in the current CCP government that wants to be known as the 2nd Coming of Mao.
@@TheRibbonRed Yes, exactly and it wouldn't be difficult for the CCP to acquire the hardware to pull this off. All they would have to do is wave the gulag in front their crypto-mining citizens and all of a sudden, the CCP has majority control of the bitcoin
@@gjoebeck the point of it is often to destroy your competition, rather than progress yourself
1:02 The Federal Reserve can only create (bank) reserves, it does not have the power to create currency. Banks are the only entities (in the USA) that can create currency, via credit. Even the stimulus checks, which are loaned to the US treasury in the form of reserves from Federal Reserve, are not creating currency because they get paid back and eliminated, the same as bank reserves.
Yo mental, been watching you since the gentoo install parts, a method to boost you on the algorithm is to post frequently in your "Community" tab.
Bump
Yes it is truly perfectly balanced to post on the community tab, at least that is what a brit told me
bump +1
what's a bigger concern is that china owns the biggest chunk (over 51%) of the hash rate on btc.
@kacchan bruuuuhhhhhhhh
65% if I am not mistaken. That is why we need algorithms like randomX that can't be asic mined.
That’s a lie
@@fungibleanonymousglockboug2162 An underlying problem it is.
@@WiseGuy508 Note that there is no such thing as asic proof only asic resistant.
Haven’t fully watched yet but gotta help you in this horrible algorithm 👍
@Clara Clack stfu
@@Xetarine report and move on
@Clara Clack aRE YOU ASSUMING THEIR GENDER?!?!?!?!
I saw this on Silicon Valley
I actually wondered about this when reading the bitcoin whitepaper
You read about the part where each block mined to catch up with the original would need to have an exponential hash rate with each block?
@@Nerd2Ninja It literally says "The
system is secure as long as honest nodes collectively control more CPU power than any
cooperating group of attacker nodes." in the first paragraph of a paper. But it was written before crypto was big (obviously), so the author didn't expand on that thought, because there was no empirical data
I notice your description has the "%" in front of the integer. I do that some what frequently myself. It's kinda like declaring a variable. I actually think that's the more rational method of defining a percentage.
% is not a variable though and it has a very specific function. It's a symbol that literally means "per cent". 51% is 51 per cent (51 for every 100). Instead of writing 51/100 every time, we shorten it to 51% because it's much simpler and we use that enough to warrant this change as a standard.
@@SiMeGamer Yeah, shouldn't have called it Rational. But it'd be so much easier on the mind!
We arent writing C rn
Maybe that feels common, when you are from a country, where they call "50 Dollars" $50.
At least it's common in Germany to put the currency after the count (50$, 50€, 50¥, etc.).
And when talking about common units (feet, meters, liters) almost everyone would probably put the unit afterwards.
Besides that, it's just the way you speak. It's the same order. You don't say "Percentage 50" as you don't say "Dollar 50".
The fact, that it reminds you of declaring a variable would rather be an argument against using this notation.
I would just put the unit after the number, no matter what the unit is, for consistency reasons.
A few corrections:
1. Most of the work that the miners are doing is actually not validating transactions. It's work for the sake of work (yes actually). They do have to validate the transactions but they are not the only ones doing that. Every full node (ideally a full node is equivalent to a user) validates transactions. If a miner mines a block with an invalid transaction it gets rejected by the network.
2. We don't choose the chain with the most transactions. We choose the one with the most proof of work.
If all people don't verify 100% of their wallet there will be double spending. Which makes a 51% attack that does "not" actually need 51%, possible. I would be alot more scared if i had bitcoin, now I'm only scared if financial institutions get too invested into crypto.
Huh?
I don't understand what you mean. The miners look at them.
@@schwingedeshaehers If you have a wallet but do not verify you wallet properly there is a problem.
@@davidjohansson1416 why do you need less than 51 percent for this attack? The miners say the right block, because of the length of the chain. You need a longer chain than they can build, and for that you need more than 50 % of the hashrate.
It is well within the US and Chinese governments’ ability to do this. It’s just a matter of *when* one of them decides it is in their interest. I’ve never really understood why the smart money isn’t concerned about this. Just get off the ship before the torpedo hits?
Supposing that they can do it, it would cost a lot of money and who’s down to use tax dollar to buy mining equipment and electricity, no one. Passing that barrier, it would take a lot of time to catch up to the current chain which would leave space for people figuring it out and taking countermeasures
@@jetmirberisha8201 I don’t think the US would do it.
@@jetmirberisha8201 You're severely underestimating the government ability to squander tax payer's money. They could easily create a new program to that end and burry it in the 969th page an omnibus bill and get it to pass and nobody would be the wiser. If you only knew how bad things really are.
@@loremipsum5697 US military spending budget lul
they probably wouldn't do this because it would be cheaper for them to just straight up make it illegal
This seems like it would be very plausible to happen if 3-4 pools with 10-15% hash rate each came together.. especially since a lot of massive mining operations are in china. It’s not far fetched to think the Chinese government would “force” **private** mining operations to do something like this
If someone controls > 50% of the network it's not decentralized anymore
If Crypto Currencies dies then Graphics cards will become dirt cheep for gamers again
The other thing that banks have to their advantage is if someone double-spend worst comes to worst they just eat it themselves and write it off, thus nullifying the potential problem.
Wow this shit just blew my mind. Maybe I should stop watching complex stuff at 5 Am in the morning.
1:05 wrong, private banks create money when they loan with interest. the "check" for this is they have to borrow some money from the fed to "afford" the loan, but in practice its 0.1% of the loan or something like that, in terms of creating money the fed is actually a tiny player compared to private banks.
@Finxert but it all goes on the banks' books (apart from that 100$ or whatever). they loan the 200k out of thin air and get back that plus interest, which every single time outweighs the fed fee, by design, otherwise they wouldnt make (as much) of a profit (they also invest but loans are the biggest source of their money afaik).
i understand what youre saying, that no fed = no private bank shekels, but a) theyd make themselves another loophole to fractional reserve lend anyway, and b) there wouldnt be a fed fee if they had their way, its only there so it *looks* like private banks didnt create 97% or so of the money
The US gov loans every dollar the fed prints by default, so every printed dollar is worth 1$ + interest.
Consider this: 81 percent of the Bitcoin blockchain is concentrated in China. China has plans to nationalize it's biggest companies, and there's a lot of money to be made in Bitcoin.
China's biggest companies are already nationalized and ccp controlled
Or so it used to be
One more way to fight the 51% attack is the Proof of Stake Consensus. Instead of having 51% of all the Computing Power of the network, Proof of Stake would require you to have 51% of all the Cryptocurrency in existence (whichever one you are trying to take over) but then using Proof of Stake would definitely bring down the amount of value miners receive for mining.
A few coins have a hybrid PoW and PoS consensus.
@@jcdenton7914 how does a hybrid system work? I mean does it have both PoW and PoS at the same time or they switch between the two?
@@GodModeMaker There's 2 main implementations I know of. Ticket voting or nodes. The general idea is that you need to PoS to validate the mined blocks so doing a 51% attack alone isn't enough, it could be a 75% attack, or 90% it still wouldn't work unless you have enough of the PoS to validate enough of those mined blocks to amount to 51% of your mined blocks being validated by yourself.
At least in the ticket system it's easier to illustrate this example.If you have exactly 51% of both the PoW and PoS, your power over that blockchain would be equivalent to a 25-26% attack on a pure PoW blockchain. 51% is basically slightly more then half of all blocks mined being mined by you, and 51% of all tickets means of the blocks you mine, about half of those will be validated in your attack. You would need 100% of all the PoW mining and 51% of all the tickets, or vice versa to pull off the attack.
Alternatively a 71% and 72% attack on both PoW and PoS would work (0.71 * 0.72 = 0.5112).
@@jcdenton7914 Ohh, got it. That's dope. What coins use the hybrid? I know Ethereum is going to or already has shifted to PoS alone maybe
@@GodModeMaker Horizen and Dash use nodes. Decred uses tickets. There's pros and cons to each method but none of these coins have split off in hardforks or suffered 51% attacks with the exception of Horizen before the PoS nodes were implemented.
There could be more hybrid coins in the top 100 but those are the only 3 I know of.
Can't they build something into the protocol that detects how large these pools are? Basically, the larger you are, the less trustworthy you become. So blocks that are arriving from a pool that is too large reach a point where they can no longer be trusted.
This seems like a very fundamental problem that should have already been factored into the Bitcoin code a long time ago. I presume newer coins have already thought of this and have mitigated the issue using other techniques?
At some point shares should just be rejected imo
You should also take a look at India banning BTC & pvt Crypto.
So you're telling me "Diversity is our strength" actually applies in this scenario? Kinda funny if you ask me
@flim Kenny panders to 4chan'ers, of course you're going to get some 4chan shit posters posting shit 4chan memes.
Wouldn't pointing out the edginess be, in itself, more edgy & hipster?
@flim triggered. Diversity of node operator, genius
More like segregation is our strength
correct me if I'm wrong but this 51% could be any number of individual miners working together? could there be a bitcoin syndicalist revolution?
Wishful thinking
@@mishak6175 i was more asking about possiblity, not necessarily probability.
*geomagnetic storm* -> goodbye blockchain
Change my mind
Takes a while to get to the "What can you do" part. Which is essentially "just mine it". Making it more difficult to crash said currency.
Only slightly though. Unless you mine together with your comparably rich friends.
@@TheRibbonRed when everyone mies with a weak gpu it is sitll almost impossible for a single goverment to get that mutch calculstion power
@@timeTegus except in the video itself, it has been stated that over 60% of Bitcoin miners are in China.
They're not using "weak GPUs" there when they *make* the GPUs most use to mine.
@@TheRibbonRed i mean if every person would mine. Every adult person.
thanks for the monero video im rolling great advice
What about Stellar? Is that currency subject to 51% attacks?
According to SDF (The foundation who develops Stellar); no: www.stellar.org/learn/blockchain-basics "On Stellar, such attacks are impossible, by design. Submitting bad data in real-time also doesn’t work because eventually your selfish intention will be voted down and the network will agree on the right data."
Rather than using a proof of work system (mining to verify transactions), it uses the Stellar Consensus Protocol which means that a group of computers on the Stellar network uses a Gossip like protocol ( en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gossip_protocol ) to agree on whether a transaction's valid.
You can learn more about it from Stellar's official website: www.stellar.org/learn/intro-to-stellar
Stellar isn't PoW mining like BTC is. Basically almost all PoW mining coins are at risk of mining centralization. On the other hand PoS pay all transaction fees to stake holders and usually only the ones who have large stacks so it becomes a game where the 1% gets richer by doing nothing bu sitting on their mountains of gold and over time the 1% becomes the 0.1% and 0.01% who own the majority of the wealth.
Hybrid PoW and PoS coins seem to be the best solution. Coins like Horizen, Dash, and Decred would be the biggest 3 examples I'm aware of.
interesting video
I actually always had the question in the back of my mind of "If other people are doing the verification of transactions what if enough people got together and tried to fck up the system"
not knowing everything about the blockchain I just assumed there must be some kind of protection in place to stop that from happening
guess I was wrong
kind of scary to think about actually
Market incentives are the protection.
guys, don't give elon musk any weird ideas
Commenting for the algorithm. Nice video mate.
Not gonna happen for many years, but eventually, quantum computers will be more economic for hashing than transistor computers, and not far after that, they will be able to easily dominate crypto mining if someone with the required resources desides to do that.
the gentoo master is uploading again!
Now the question is: What about Proof of stake cryptocurrencies?
Thanks for your comment,
Write my broker Arthur Rafael Aybar on WhatsApp to earn huge in bitcoin trading for,his strategies are top notch,he's really making me huge gains with his strategies in trading
+1 2 5 1 3 1 3 3 5 3 8
How could you even detect if it has or hasn't happened?
I wonder if one could pull that off with less money by using cloud services - meaning one wouldn't have to actually buy all that hardware, but would essentially just rent it.
Or a well planned virus that sets up 3 million computers to crash the system
Didn't that happen already with Ethereum Classic or something?
Monero is the key
Cool as always, but why do you use powerpoint slides instead of editing the videos?
less effort
..or you can just have a botnet to wreck the same havoc?
You are my favorite channel
and prove of stack ?
Does this work with monero?
To me it seems like there would be a lot of statistical variability as the 51 percent hacker is overtaking the current blockchain. Then eventually when the attacker is far enough ahead these shenanigans could start reliably. Perhaps one in 10 blocks to the other party would be enough to disrupt this process.
damn didnt know the chicomies controlled that much
I'm not surprised
Hey not related to the video, but i think you should turn your video comment filter on. There's dozen of bot comments here
I don't see why the other miners couldn't simply blacklist the malicious miner and ignore the malicious broadcast.
They do, but then the question becomes "what is malicious?"
Right now, the assumption is that the history that the most people agree on is the truth. Without that assumption, how do you know what's true?
i like your content
You would actually need over 3.1 million RTX 3090's to get 51% with the numbers presented.
x/(452 TH/s + x) = 0.51
x = 0.51*452 TH/s / (1-0.51) ≈ 470 TH/s
470000000 MH/s / 150 MH/s ≈ 3100000
They use Asic miners Not gpus bruh
Cool story bruh, not sure how that relates to the "2 million RTX 3090's" stated in the video being incorrect.
I like the "not allowed to create money out of thin air only the Federal reserve can do that" that made me laugh I liked it because it's true and so simply drives the point of what is money home.
Is Monero less susceptible to such an attack? Was randomx implemented specifically to help maintain the decentralized nature of the network?
I believe any proof-of-work coin has this same issue, including monero. The one possible advantage that it might have over btc is that the randomx algorithm is immune to ASICs and specialized hardware.
Welcome to the crypto wars! ⚔️
The dictatorship of democracy (Bobbio) applied to cryptography
This was a interesting vid, also how would you differentiate between chineese mining pools from other mining pools?
Could something like this work on a cryptocurrency that doesn't use a blockchain like IOTA?
couldn't you regenerate wallets and transfer to avoid this?
this is quality content, glad I subed
Mental outlaw why do you personall use Gentoo?
You didn't mention the use of algorithms like randomX which means that the masses don't have to compete with asics.
Cryptocurrencies consume more electricity than some small to medium countries, all lost doing no real work.
it's horribly inefficient from a grid/climate perspective.
Plus it burns all the GPUs up and makes the used PC parts very expensive as a result.
Now you're minin' with 'tegridy!
Hey man love your videos :)
there is another way to do that...
if most people use an certain operating system (eg: windows) and you find an security hole on it, and use it to hack into their computers, and they are mining bitcoin, then you can use it as your own private mining network.
while this might seems harder to do than just purchasing an bunch or machines, it can also be cheaper and get unoticed until its too later.
Q-Day could do this amount of damage. I made enough mining to pull out forever, less than a grand after hardware and power. Once I noticed a dip with inflation last year I cashed out to later realize what a scheme market crypto has become.
These are all reasons why there are SmartContract coins. We only need to move over. Go Eth2.0!
How would all Teslas computing power measure up to this? They have say 1million cars each having 2 chips since about the 250k mark, couldn't elon say put 10-25-30% of every tesla towards its own pool?
Hey Chris
The Bitcoin family has proved to be very productive , No matter the knowledge gathered I stake my coins with my fellow colleagues whose a broker Arthur Rafael Aybar ,his strategies are top notch,he's really making me huge gains with his strategies in trading
Oh boy...
RandomX baby. Monero can't stop winning.
I hate the name "51%-Attack".
It does not need to be exactly 51%. It just needs to be more than 50%. But the more you have, the more likely the attack is to succeed.
The attack could theoretically even succeed with not even 50%, but you'd have to get lucky and probably won't be able to sustain it for long enough to cause any damage.
I'd just call it "50%-Attack" or "50%+-Attack" or "50+%-Attack" or maybe something totally different like "Majority-Attack".
Federal bank will not allow other unlegit , illegal pools thst does not recognised from them. Even cental bank investigation officers should always investigate the pools. If not they will not allow to exchange pools each other and money too.
Nice
Blockchain: length matters
Not the longest chain is chosen a shorther chain can also be an alternative chain if the cumulative difficulty is higher
sounds crazy at first but if you think about it; investing let's say 1B USD on mining equipment and infrastructure (if that's enough to get 51% of Bitcoins' hashrate it can dominate any other minor crypto hashrate), pick a cryptocurrency and double spend on it (i.e. buy supercars, gold, assets, exchange for cash) let it crash then move to another crypto and repeat, you will end up with a shit ton of Teslas/Ferraris land, cash and gold on fiscal paradise and a shitload of 3090s to sell
honestly, just reselling the 3090s would probably be easier and more profitable.
1:02 i fucking love you for that XDDDD
Stocks are good crypto is better
I heard that her strategies are really good
She's obviously the best I invested 2000USD with her and in 9 days I made a profit of 9101USD
Trading crypto with Expert Dawson has being a game changer for me
How do I contact Mrs Dawson.?
"+1 7 3 1 2 7 5-8 3 3 7"
CCP ceases most btc mining operations in China starting with the Sichuan province June 18th, 2021.
As a govermant this is not too hard to do. Oh you saied it in the video xD
What about hacking multiple pools.
so much thank you for the great content, Pvt Becker!!! You're always rly entertaining as well as on pt, on :fire:
Youre voice is nice
It's probably not too difficult for pools just to simply reject no workers trying to join.
Or just use a coin that uses Proof of Stake instead of Proof of Work.
Doesn’t solve the problem of decentralization though. One can still own 51>% of a given PoS currency
lookin yok3d. i like this crypto content. who are the guys you listen to? digital asset news, sheldon and...?
Hoping this happens so y'all stop burning down the planet for free money
Plane earth not planet
If somebody kills Bitcoin, will kill also all the other cryptos, because if there is no fate in BTC, you will have less fate on other cryptos.
Damn, I mean I like monero, but I also like ethereum too. :(
If someone gets 51% to crash Bitcoin (which is the largest), couldn't they subsequently crash all other cryptocurrencies by switching their mining rig to Etherium and litecoin etc? Like a rich anarchist or something. That sounds pretty bad
You can't mine ETH with bitcoin ASICs, and you can't effectively mine Bitcoin using GPUs because ASICs are too fast. Many cryptos are intentionally designed to only be minable using GPUs or CPUs to allow the general public that happens to own gaming PCs to mine the and avoid centralization like with Bitcoin and ASICs but the downside is that it creates massive demand for GPUs during crypto booms.
9:37 best mishearing I've ever had
Wonder if this "GPU shortage" is actually real or not...
If I can be honest for one second.
I think the current way cryptocurrencies are used should just die.
I'm not saying cryptocurrencies in general needs to die I'm just saying thet the way that they're being used currently should die.
First Comment
when the state is sus
funny how you called the mid 2021 crash