Andreas Antonopoulos - 51% Bitcoin Attack
Why Hacker News recommends it
HN commenters link it as a short, favorite explanation of Bitcoin's security and the sustainability of a 51% attack.
What it is
A two-minute clip of Andreas Antonopoulos explaining why a 51% attack on Bitcoin would not destroy it and what such an attack would cost. It is a succinct take on mining security.
Recommended by 3 HN commenters across 3 different months, 2021 to 2024.
What Hacker News said
Recommends rattlesnakedave · 2021-06 · on “Cost of a 51% Attack for Different Cryptocurrencies”
it’s basically impossible to sustainably 51% Bitcoin or ETH at this point. You could 51% for an hour (maybe, if you can get that hash rate from nicehash for that long, but I doubt you actually can), but what happens at the end of that hour? Would everyone simply throw their hands up, allow your double spend, and keep mining your chain? Likely not. Andreas Antonopoulos has a good take on this for Bitcoin: [this video]
Recommends avnigo · 2021-08 · on “Bitcoin’s Energy Usage Isn’t a Problem. Here’s Why”
It should be noted that the bitcoin network does not need to consume more energy to scale up: - Using more energy does not translate to more transactions committed to the ledger. Second and third layer solutions can handle the world's transactional need with minimal energy usage, still using the security provided by the bitcoin network. - The security of the bitcoin network is not dependent on the amount of users, and mostly driven by financial incentives. However, the more energy it uses, the more secure it is against attacks. As it is, the bitcoin network does not need to use more energy, and here's [0] a succinct explanation as to why. [0]: [this video]
Recommends latchkey · 2022-06 · on “Are blockchains decentralized?”
> They don’t provide an analysis of the true cost of launching a 51% attack. Andreas Antonopoulos has done this many times already. [this video] (one of my favorites and only a couple minutes long) [LINK] [LINK] [LINK]
Cites alwillis · 2021-01 · on “Nano: What Bitcoin Was Supposed to Be”
I don't think it's FUD. Of course you don't; you're here promoting Nano. If the Chinese government wanted to destroy BTC (because it violated their currency control laws), they could do it by coercing the owners of the mining pools located in China and those pools do do currently have over 51% of hash power. Again, this is FUD. It's not a good look to market Nano by trying to scare people into believing something like a 51% attack could happen tomorrow, when it's extremely unlikely to happen. Nano should be able to stand on its own without these scare tactics. You're assuming a double-spend attack on a block mined by Chinese miners would destroy Bitcoin when everyone knows such an attach is
Cites latchkey · 2023-04 · on “A systematic critique of Bitcoin's value proposition”
> I suppose if your worry is a government trying to destroy Bitcoin, then that’s exactly how to do it… Andreas Antonopoulos - 51% Bitcoin Attack [this video]
Cites latchkey · 2024-04 · on “Bitcoin Block 840000”
It will never be cheap enough to 51% attack either and even if it was attacked, it wouldn't matter. [this video] [LINK]