The post 51% attack on the Bitcoin network would cost $6 billion, research reveals appeared on BitcoinEthereumNews.com. Bitcoin is trusted by governments and financial institutions. Reputable investors call it “digital gold,” and some even claim it’s better than gold. Notwithstanding all these, Bitcoin is still facing various security threats. Lately, a lot has been said about the potential threat from quantum computers. However, Duke University Professor Campbell Harvey revealed another concern, namely the relative cheapness of a 51% attack on the Bitcoin network.  Summary If successful, a 51% attack gives attackers control over the Bitcoin blockchain (or another proof-of-work-based blockchain). To achieve success, attackers must control over 50% of the mining hashrate, which is costly. In the past, Bitcoin Gold and Ethereum Classic went through successful 51% attacks, resulting in the theft of coins through double-spending. Throughout history, the Bitcoin blockchain has been safe from the 51% attacks. According to Harvey, to dominate in the hashrate production for one week, attackers would need to spend “only” $6 billion, which is less than 0.5% of Bitcoin’s market capitalization. Harvey provided a possible practical use of such an attack. Duke University Fuqua School of Business Professor Campbell Harvey released a paper dedicated to potential threats to Bitcoin. In an abstract, Harvey likens Bitcoin to gold but outlines that Bitcoin is facing its specific threats: quantum computers and, what’s more important, a possible 51% attack. He also recognizes that Bitcoin has its advantages over gold. For instance, he mentions that “modern alchemy” allows the production of more gold, while Bitcoin’s supply cannot exceed 21,000,000 units. What’s a 51% attack? As Bitcoin mining is costly and requires special hardware, miners don’t have an opportunity to mess with the ledger data. Each node “votes” via computing power (hashrate) to validate transactions in new blocks, and the majority of miners are voting for correct data. Miners are motivated to vote for the correct… The post 51% attack on the Bitcoin network would cost $6 billion, research reveals appeared on BitcoinEthereumNews.com. Bitcoin is trusted by governments and financial institutions. Reputable investors call it “digital gold,” and some even claim it’s better than gold. Notwithstanding all these, Bitcoin is still facing various security threats. Lately, a lot has been said about the potential threat from quantum computers. However, Duke University Professor Campbell Harvey revealed another concern, namely the relative cheapness of a 51% attack on the Bitcoin network.  Summary If successful, a 51% attack gives attackers control over the Bitcoin blockchain (or another proof-of-work-based blockchain). To achieve success, attackers must control over 50% of the mining hashrate, which is costly. In the past, Bitcoin Gold and Ethereum Classic went through successful 51% attacks, resulting in the theft of coins through double-spending. Throughout history, the Bitcoin blockchain has been safe from the 51% attacks. According to Harvey, to dominate in the hashrate production for one week, attackers would need to spend “only” $6 billion, which is less than 0.5% of Bitcoin’s market capitalization. Harvey provided a possible practical use of such an attack. Duke University Fuqua School of Business Professor Campbell Harvey released a paper dedicated to potential threats to Bitcoin. In an abstract, Harvey likens Bitcoin to gold but outlines that Bitcoin is facing its specific threats: quantum computers and, what’s more important, a possible 51% attack. He also recognizes that Bitcoin has its advantages over gold. For instance, he mentions that “modern alchemy” allows the production of more gold, while Bitcoin’s supply cannot exceed 21,000,000 units. What’s a 51% attack? As Bitcoin mining is costly and requires special hardware, miners don’t have an opportunity to mess with the ledger data. Each node “votes” via computing power (hashrate) to validate transactions in new blocks, and the majority of miners are voting for correct data. Miners are motivated to vote for the correct…

51% attack on the Bitcoin network would cost $6 billion, research reveals

Bitcoin is trusted by governments and financial institutions. Reputable investors call it “digital gold,” and some even claim it’s better than gold. Notwithstanding all these, Bitcoin is still facing various security threats. Lately, a lot has been said about the potential threat from quantum computers. However, Duke University Professor Campbell Harvey revealed another concern, namely the relative cheapness of a 51% attack on the Bitcoin network. 

Summary

  • If successful, a 51% attack gives attackers control over the Bitcoin blockchain (or another proof-of-work-based blockchain). To achieve success, attackers must control over 50% of the mining hashrate, which is costly.
  • In the past, Bitcoin Gold and Ethereum Classic went through successful 51% attacks, resulting in the theft of coins through double-spending. Throughout history, the Bitcoin blockchain has been safe from the 51% attacks.
  • According to Harvey, to dominate in the hashrate production for one week, attackers would need to spend “only” $6 billion, which is less than 0.5% of Bitcoin’s market capitalization. Harvey provided a possible practical use of such an attack.

Duke University Fuqua School of Business Professor Campbell Harvey released a paper dedicated to potential threats to Bitcoin. In an abstract, Harvey likens Bitcoin to gold but outlines that Bitcoin is facing its specific threats: quantum computers and, what’s more important, a possible 51% attack. He also recognizes that Bitcoin has its advantages over gold. For instance, he mentions that “modern alchemy” allows the production of more gold, while Bitcoin’s supply cannot exceed 21,000,000 units.

What’s a 51% attack?

As Bitcoin mining is costly and requires special hardware, miners don’t have an opportunity to mess with the ledger data. Each node “votes” via computing power (hashrate) to validate transactions in new blocks, and the majority of miners are voting for correct data. Miners are motivated to vote for the correct data as they depend on the Bitcoin blockchain’s integrity, which gives it value. 

However, once half of the total hashrate in the system is controlled by a single entity (a person or a group of plotters), it has the power to change the records in the Bitcoin ledger. It will allow bad actors to move other people’s bitcoins, effectively stealing them. 

While some criticize Bitcoin for its low decentralization level, no one in 16 years of Bitcoin’s existence has ever managed to gain control over the Bitcoin blockchain. 

In the early days of Bitcoin, mining was accessible to any PC owner. However, as mining is based on competition where the luckiest miner has to have a higher hashrate level than most rivals, computers and even GPUs and FPGAs quickly became obsolete for mining. In 2013, the first ASICs (devices specialized for Bitcoin mining) hit the market. Soon, Bitcoin mining turned into a multi-million-dollar industry, requiring much investment and facilities filled with humming ASIC devices. In October 2025, Bitcoin mining difficulty reached a new maximum.

It makes hacking Bitcoin via a 51% attack a hard and expensive task. As the mining difficulty is going up, each year the costs of a 51% attack are getting higher.

Campbell Harvey’s findings

While a 51% attack is costly, its price is not unthinkable. Such networks as Bitcoin Gold and Ethereum Classic suffered several 51% attacks after 2017. Each one of them resulted in one million plus worth of crypto stolen in each separate case. In August 2025, Qubic mining pool claimed it got over 50% of the hashing power in the Monero network. 

Professor Harvey calculated the costs and concluded that one week of domination on the Bitcoin blockchain would cost “only” $6 billion:

The research is based on the following metrics:

  • Bitcoin’s annual output is 164,363 BTC
  • Energy usage is 166.4TWh
  • Total cost is $12 trillion
  • Total energy cost is $8.4 trillion
  • Total cost per unit is $73,000 per 1 BTC unit

Harvey noted that a successful 51% attack on Bitcoin would cause a severe price drop, and hackers could still profit from it and earn much more than $6 billion back. Harvey estimated BTC perpetual futures daily volume at $60 billion and conventional BTC futures daily volume at $10 billion. Harvey believes that opening a short position on these markets before a 51% attack could result in high profits for attackers on top of returning $6 billion. Harvey adds that the motive may not be profit-related.

However, critics of Harvey’s warning argued that setting such a huge mining operation would have taken years, and it wouldn’t go unnoticed. More than that, shorting so much BTC in the conditions of an ongoing 51% attack may be hard, as the exchange will probably flag an operation as market manipulation and won’t let it.

Commenting on Harvey’s research, Matt Prusak, president of American Bitcoin Corp., told Bloomberg: “My attitude is that economic feasibility kills the 51% thesis. I live in the real world, and I am not concerned.”

Source: https://crypto.news/51-attack-on-the-bitcoin-network-would-cost-6-billion/

Piyasa Fırsatı
null Logosu
null Fiyatı(null)
--
----
USD
null (null) Canlı Fiyat Grafiği
Sorumluluk Reddi: Bu sitede yeniden yayınlanan makaleler, halka açık platformlardan alınmıştır ve yalnızca bilgilendirme amaçlıdır. MEXC'nin görüşlerini yansıtmayabilir. Tüm hakları telif sahiplerine aittir. Herhangi bir içeriğin üçüncü taraf haklarını ihlal ettiğini düşünüyorsanız, kaldırılması için lütfen [email protected] ile iletişime geçin. MEXC, içeriğin doğruluğu, eksiksizliği veya güncelliği konusunda hiçbir garanti vermez ve sağlanan bilgilere dayalı olarak alınan herhangi bir eylemden sorumlu değildir. İçerik, finansal, yasal veya diğer profesyonel tavsiye niteliğinde değildir ve MEXC tarafından bir tavsiye veya onay olarak değerlendirilmemelidir.

Ayrıca Şunları da Beğenebilirsiniz

Is Putnam Global Technology A (PGTAX) a strong mutual fund pick right now?

Is Putnam Global Technology A (PGTAX) a strong mutual fund pick right now?

The post Is Putnam Global Technology A (PGTAX) a strong mutual fund pick right now? appeared on BitcoinEthereumNews.com. On the lookout for a Sector – Tech fund? Starting with Putnam Global Technology A (PGTAX – Free Report) should not be a possibility at this time. PGTAX possesses a Zacks Mutual Fund Rank of 4 (Sell), which is based on various forecasting factors like size, cost, and past performance. Objective We note that PGTAX is a Sector – Tech option, and this area is loaded with many options. Found in a wide number of industries such as semiconductors, software, internet, and networking, tech companies are everywhere. Thus, Sector – Tech mutual funds that invest in technology let investors own a stake in a notoriously volatile sector, but with a much more diversified approach. History of fund/manager Putnam Funds is based in Canton, MA, and is the manager of PGTAX. The Putnam Global Technology A made its debut in January of 2009 and PGTAX has managed to accumulate roughly $650.01 million in assets, as of the most recently available information. The fund is currently managed by Di Yao who has been in charge of the fund since December of 2012. Performance Obviously, what investors are looking for in these funds is strong performance relative to their peers. PGTAX has a 5-year annualized total return of 14.46%, and is in the middle third among its category peers. But if you are looking for a shorter time frame, it is also worth looking at its 3-year annualized total return of 27.02%, which places it in the middle third during this time-frame. It is important to note that the product’s returns may not reflect all its expenses. Any fees not reflected would lower the returns. Total returns do not reflect the fund’s [%] sale charge. If sales charges were included, total returns would have been lower. When looking at a fund’s performance, it…
Paylaş
BitcoinEthereumNews2025/09/18 04:05
Crypto Casino Luck.io Pays Influencers Up to $500K Monthly – But Why?

Crypto Casino Luck.io Pays Influencers Up to $500K Monthly – But Why?

Crypto casino Luck.io is reportedly paying influencers six figures a month to promote its services, a June 18 X post from popular crypto trader Jordan Fish, aka Cobie, shows. Crypto Influencers Reportedly Earning Six Figures Monthly According to a screenshot of messages between Cobie and an unidentified source embedded in the Wednesday post, the anonymous messenger confirmed that the crypto company pays influencers “around” $500,000 per month to promote the casino. They’re paying extremely well (6 fig per month) pic.twitter.com/AKRVKU9vp4 — Cobie (@cobie) June 18, 2025 However, not everyone was as convinced of the number’s accuracy. “That’s only for Faze Banks probably,” one user replied. “Other influencers are getting $20-40k per month. So, same as other online crypto casinos.” Cobie pushed back on the user’s claims by identifying the messenger as “a crypto person,” going on to state that he knew of “4 other crypto people” earning “above 200k” from Luck.io. Drake’s Massive Stake.com Deal Cobie’s post comes amid growing speculation over celebrity and influencer collaborations with crypto casinos globally. Aubrey Graham, better known as Toronto-based rapper Drake, is reported to make nearly $100 million every year from his partnership with cryptocurrency casino Stake.com. As part of his deal with the Curaçao-based digital casino, the “Nokia” rapper occasionally hosts live-stream gambling sessions for his more than 140 million Instagram followers. Founded by entrepreneurs Ed Craven and Bijan Therani in 2017, the organization allegedly raked in $2.6 billion in 2022. Stake.com has even solidified key partnerships with Alfa Romeo’s F1 team and Liverpool-based Everton Football Club. However, concerns remain over crypto casinos’ legality as a whole , given their massive accessibility and reach online. Earlier this year, Stake was slapped with litigation out of Illinois for supposedly running an illegal online casino stateside while causing “severe harm to vulnerable populations.” “Stake floods social media platforms with slick ads, influencer videos, and flashy visuals, making its games seem safe, fun, and harmless,” the lawsuit claims. “By masking its real-money gambling platform as just another “social casino,” Stake creates exactly the kind of dangerous environment that Illinois gambling laws were designed to stop.”
Paylaş
CryptoNews2025/06/19 04:53
U.S. Banks Near Stablecoin Issuance Under FDIC Genius Act Plan

U.S. Banks Near Stablecoin Issuance Under FDIC Genius Act Plan

The post U.S. Banks Near Stablecoin Issuance Under FDIC Genius Act Plan appeared on BitcoinEthereumNews.com. U.S. banks could soon begin applying to issue payment
Paylaş
BitcoinEthereumNews2025/12/17 02:55