Et spørgsmål, der dvæler i hovedet på de fleste handlende, er, hvad der ville ske, hvis Bitcoin blev hacket? Under en episode af Ukædet podcast, samlede vært Laura Shin Ethereum Foundation-forsker Justin Drake og forfatter Vijay Boyapati for at diskutere, om et 51% angreb på Bitcoin ville være muligt - og hvem der kunne gøre det.
A 51% attack. . .in dollars
Boyapati begyndte med foreslå ideen om, at sikkerhed var et spektrum og ikke et binært. For eksempel kan brugere og endda netværk kræve et andet antal transaktionsbekræftelser, før de er tilfredse.
Drake var enig i, at sikkerhed var et spektrum, hvis angriberens hashkraft var mindre end 50 %. Han ahævdede at hvis en angriber kontrollerer mere end 50 % af hash-kraften, bliver sikkerheden binær. Ydermere opnår angriberen "God mode" over Bitcoin, med magten til at mine tomme blokke indtil tidens ende.
Med sigte på bevis-af-arbejde konsensus-mekanisme, Drake også hævdede at en angriber kunne gøre "God mode" til en realitet ved at købe den hash-kraft, der skal til for at kontrollere 51% af netværket.
He sagde,
“And so you can look, for example, at the hashrate of the Bitcoin network which is roughly 150 million terahashes per second and then you can ask yourself: how much does it cost to manufacture and deploy one terahash per second and you can put a dollar amount to that…”
Ved at tildele en værdi på $50 til en terahash, beregnede Drake, at en angriber ville have brug for omkring $7.5 milliarder for et angreb. Han bemærkede at dette "økonomiske skjold" ville være "peanuts" for nationalstater som USA eller Kina, der forsøger at angribe netværket.
For his part, Boyapati argued that the Bitcoin network was created to incentivize users with greater hash power to mine Bitcoin instead of attacking the network.
Game Theory vs. Economics
While Drake took an economic approach to attacking Bitcoin, Boyapati used game theory to argue that nation-states trying to attack Bitcoin would meet with resistance from both financial institutions and nation-states holding BTC as a reserve asset.
Dernæst udforskede Boyapati en "nuklear mulighed" - ændring af SHA-256 proof-of-work-funktionen. Han sagde,
“Under an extremely grave situation, it would be possible for participants in the network to say, ‘we want to change our proof-of-work function.’ What would that do to an attacker? Every machine that they had bought, all of the electricity that they had put into attacking the network would instantly be worth nothing.”
Drake called the solution “flawed.” He noted the attacker could buy ASIC miners, GPUs, and CPUs to later repeat the process.
Billionaire attackers?
Bortset fra nationalstater, Drake bemærkede at angreb på Bitcoin var et "spil" tilgængeligt for folk som milliardær Elon Musk og enheder som Microstrategy.
Even so, Boyapati and Drake agreed on one point: that “skin in the game” was vital to study, as those with the least involvement had the most incentive to attack Bitcoin.
Hvor skal man investere?
Abonner på vores nyhedsbrev
Source: https://ambcrypto.com/what-are-the-chances-of-these-entities-attacking-the-bitcoin-network/