Regardless of being underpinned by blockchain expertise that guarantees safety, immutability, and full transparency, many cryptocurrencies like Bitcoin SV (BSV), Litecoin (LTC) and Ethereum Traditional (ETC) have been topic to 51% assaults a number of occasions prior to now. Whereas there are a lot of mechanisms by which malicious entities can and have exploited blockchains, a 51% assault, or a majority assault as it’s also known as, happens when a bunch of miners or an entity controls greater than 50% of the blockchain’s hashing energy after which assumes management over it.
Arguably the most costly and tedious methodology to compromise a blockchain, 51% of assaults have been largely profitable with smaller networks that require decrease hashing energy to beat nearly all of nodes.
Understanding a 51% assault
Earlier than delving into the approach concerned in a 51% assault, it is very important perceive how blockchains document transactions, validate them and the totally different controls embedded of their structure to stop any alteration. Using cryptographic methods to attach subsequent blocks, which themselves are information of transactions which have taken place on the community, a blockchain adopts one among two kinds of consensus mechanisms to validate each transaction by means of its community of nodes and document them completely.
Whereas nodes in a proof-of-work (PoW) blockchain want to resolve complicated mathematical puzzles as a way to confirm transactions and add them to the blockchain, a proof-of-stake (PoS) blockchain requires nodes to stake a specific amount of the native token to earn validator standing. Both means, a 51% assault might be orchestrated by controlling the community’s mining hash price or by commanding greater than 50% of the staked tokens within the blockchain.
To know how a 51% assault works, think about if greater than 50% of all of the nodes that carry out these validating features conspire collectively to introduce a distinct model of the blockchain or execute a denial-of-service (DOS) assault. The latter is a sort of 51% assault by which the remaining nodes are prevented from performing their features whereas the attacking nodes go about including new transactions to the blockchain or erasing previous ones. In both case, the attackers might probably reverse transactions and even double-spend the native crypto token, which is akin to creating counterfeit foreign money.
For sure, such a 51% assault can compromise your entire community and not directly trigger nice losses for buyers who maintain the native token. Although creating an altered model of the unique blockchain requires a phenomenally great amount of computing energy or staked cryptocurrency within the case of enormous blockchains like Bitcoin or Ethereum, it isn’t as far-fetched for smaller blockchains.
Even a DOS assault is able to paralyzing the blockchain’s functioning and might negatively impression the underlying cryptocurrency’s worth. Nonetheless, it’s unbelievable that older transactions past a sure cut-off might be reversed and thus places solely the latest or future transactions made on the community in danger.
Is a 51% assault on Bitcoin potential?
For a PoW blockchain, the likelihood of a 51% assault decreases because the hashing energy or the computational energy utilized per second for mining will increase. Within the case of the Bitcoin (BTC) community, perpetrators would want to regulate greater than half of the Bitcoin hash price that at present stands at ~290 exahashes/s hashing energy, requiring them to realize entry to not less than a 1.3 million of essentially the most highly effective application-specific built-in circuit (ASIC) miners like Bitmain’s Antminer S19 Professional that retails for round $3,700 every.
This is able to entail that attackers must buy mining gear totaling round $10 billion simply to face an opportunity to execute a 51% assault on the Bitcoin community. Then there are different elements like electrical energy prices and the truth that they might not be entitled to any of the mining rewards relevant for sincere nodes.
Nonetheless, for smaller blockchains like Bitcoin SV, the situation is sort of totally different, because the community’s hash price stands at round 590PH/s, making the Bitcoin community virtually 500 occasions extra highly effective than Bitcoin SV.
Within the case of a PoS blockchain like Ethereum, although, malicious entities would want to have greater than half of the full Ether (ETH) tokens which might be locked up in staking contracts on the community. This is able to require billions of {dollars} solely by way of buying the requisite computing energy to even have some semblance of launching a profitable 51% assault.
Furthermore, within the situation that the assault fails, all the staked tokens might be confiscated or locked, dealing a hefty monetary blow to the entities concerned within the purported assault.
The right way to detect and stop a 51% assault on a blockchain?
The primary verify for any blockchain could be to make sure that no single entity, group of miners or perhaps a mining pool controls greater than 50% of the community’s mining hashrate or the full variety of staked tokens.
This requires blockchains to maintain a continuing verify on the entities concerned within the mining or staking course of and take remedial motion in case of a breach. Sadly, the Bitcoin Gold (BTG) blockchain couldn’t anticipate or forestall this from taking place in Could 2018, with the same assault repeating in January 2020 that result in practically $70,000 value of BTG being double-spent by an unknown actor.
In all these cases, the 51% assault was made potential by a single community attacker gaining management over greater than 50% of the hashing energy after which continuing to conduct deep reorganizations of the unique blockchain that reversed accomplished transactions.
The repeated assaults on Bitcoin Gold do level out the significance of counting on ASIC miners as an alternative of cheaper GPU-based mining. Since Bitcoin Gold makes use of the Zhash algorithm that makes mining potential even on shopper graphics playing cards, attackers can afford to launch a 51% assault on its community while not having to speculate closely within the costlier ASIC miners.
This 51% assault instance does spotlight the superior safety controls provided by ASIC miners as they want a better quantum of funding to acquire them and are constructed particularly for a specific blockchain, making them ineffective for mining or attacking different blockchains.
Nonetheless, within the occasion that miners of cryptocurrencies like BTC shift to smaller altcoins, even a small variety of them might probably management greater than 50% of the altcoin’s smaller community hashrate.
Furthermore, with service suppliers comparable to NiceHash permitting folks to lease hashing energy for speculative crypto mining, the prices of launching a 51% assault might be drastically lowered. This has drawn consideration to the necessity for real-time monitoring of chain reorganizations on blockchains to focus on an ongoing 51% assault.
MIT Media Lab’s Digital Foreign money Initiative (DCI) is one such initiative that has constructed a system to actively monitor a lot of PoW blockchains and their cryptocurrencies, reporting any suspicious transactions that will have double-spent the native token throughout a 51% assault.
Cryptocurrencies comparable to Hanacoin (HANA), Vertcoin (VTC), Verge (XVG), Expanse (EXP), and Litecoin are just some examples of blockchain platforms that confronted a 51% assault as reported by the DCI initiative.
Of them, the Litecoin assault in July 2019 is a traditional instance of a 51% assault on a proof-of-stake blockchain, despite the fact that the attackers didn’t mine any new blocks and double-spent LTC tokens that had been value lower than $5,000 on the time of the assault.
This does spotlight the decrease dangers of 51% assaults on PoS blockchains, deeming them much less engaging to community attackers, and is without doubt one of the many causes for an rising variety of networks switching over to the PoS consensus mechanism.
