[ad_1]
The recent 51% attack on Ethereum Classic (ETC) has many in the crypto-verses wondering how simple and cheap it is for thieves to attack various blockchains, trigger double expenses and reap the rewards.
The Crypto51 website tracks the theoretical cost of 51% of attacks on each network. The acquisition cost of ETC is estimated at around $ 4,903 per hour.
At a glance, it seems that the cost to manipulate Bitcoin Cash (BCH) is little more than twice the price of Ethereum Classic's attack, at a cost of about $ 12.263 per hour.
However, the key difference is represented in the image below, under the "NiceHash-able" column. NiceHash is a popular mining pool service and the listed percentage basically represents the amount of hash power of a blockchain that you can rent. When that number is low, as for BCH, potential attackers should themselves configure mining hardware to fuel an attack – which is a significantly more expensive proposition.
With Etherum Classic, the number of hash power to rent is at most 100%. The higher the percentage, the more vulnerable is the blockchain.
Theoretical cost of attacks of 25% of POW
Proof of Work (PoW) is the consensus mechanism used to verify transactions on most blockchains. It uses large amounts of distributed computing power in an effort to prevent denial of service and spam attacks. PoW has fueled Bitcoin for ten years without failing, but has its critics.
Vitalik Buterin, co-founder of Ethereum, tweeted more than once that he does not trust the Job Test. He and his team are moving toward upgrading the Serenity to move from Ethereum to Proof of Stake, a different consensus mechanism that Buterin claims is more robust, cost-effective and environmentally friendly.
Proof of work is NOT solid if the majority is dishonest. A 51% cartel can censor anyone with profit.
– Vitalik non-donor of ether (@VitalikButerin) 12 August 2017
I do not believe in the test of work!
– Vitalik non-donor of ether (@VitalikButerin) December 25, 2018
XRP, the third largest cryptocurrency by market capitalization after Bitcoin and Ethereum, is in particular absent from the Crypto51 list because the currency can not be extracted. To obtain consent, the XRP register is based on a completely different protocol.
A Ripple CTO post David Schwartz highlights how reliable transaction validators are selected on the Ledger XRP.
"Users on the XRP ledger select a unique list of nodes (UNL), a list of validators considered reliable by that user to sort transactions, users can select specific validators for their own UNL or they can rely on Recommended UNLs that have been completed by other parties.The network has a number of recommended UNLs, including a recommended list from Ripple, and users can choose the one they prefer or create their own. "
The fact that Ripple itself recommends a list of validators has fueled the allegations that the Ledger XRP is indeed centralized. In the aftermath of the attack on Ethereum Classic, the debate on RxP was rekindled.
"Distributed" as if you trust someone other than Ripple you could end up on a different ledger. The FED's register can not be 51% attached, but it is not a good solution. pic.twitter.com/qWRlDySh9I
– ɃitConsultants (@BitConsultants) January 7, 2019
Join us on Telegram
Check out the latest news
Disclaimer: the opinions expressed in The Daily Hodl are not investment advice. Investors should do their due diligence before making high-risk investments in Bitcoin, cryptocurrency or digital assets. Please note that your transfers and operations are at your own risk and any losses you may incur are your responsibility. The Daily Hodl does not recommend the purchase or sale of any cryptocurrency or digital assets, nor The Daily Hodl is an investment advisor. Please note that The Daily Hodl participates in affiliate marketing.
[ad_2]Source link
