Bitcoin Attack

Earlier this week, Ethereum Classic turned out to be the most controversial currency on the market. The main currency was under the control of the community, where the mass of its authority had been reorganized into a deep chain of double expenditures. The attack was announced 51% for the first time by Coinbase, a recognized currency exchange platform in the United States, noting that it stopped all services to the currency in order to protect the funds of its customers.

However, after the announcement, the most prominent thing was the possibility of proving another action through a similar attack, especially on Bitcoin [BTC]. This appears to be a concern associated with the largest hidden currency conversion process during the deployment of the PoW algorithm. In the information paper, Satoshi Nakamoto said:

"If the majority of the power of the processor is controlled by an honest contract, the honest chain will grow faster and outperform any competing chains." To modify a previous block, the attacker must repeat the work of proving the block and all the blocks after that and then join and outperform the honest contract.

This effectively means that network security depends on whether more than 50% of miners follow the instructions in the worksheet. In addition, this applies not only to Bitcoin; it stands true for all cryptocurrencies using a working-proof algorithm, including Ethereum [ETH]. Dependence on the integrity of miners is often regarded as a weak mechanism of proof of action.

Jamie Soong, chief developer of Bitquin, said on Twitter:

"51% of the attack on the BTC is very difficult, not only do you need to get 51% of the retail power in terms of mining equipment, but you also have enough electricity to feed those machines.

Vithelek Pottrin, the creator of Etherum, stated that Etherreum was not attacked after his large size, on his official handle on Twitter.

"The size of the large ETH is why it has not been attacked yet," said the 51 per cent attack, which shows that 51 per cent attacks are possible even on fairly large chains, increasing the risk that the potential program of action is not even safe for us in the future.