pull down to refresh

LOL 🤣

This article must be satire. The level of misinformation in this article is so bad
That’s just one of the implications of a study appearing in the February 2025 issue of the Quarterly Journal of Economics. Another is that, because the cost of trying to prevent hacks such as North Korea’s will continue to grow, bitcoin will never become the major player in the global monetary system that its champions hope.
Budish’s research focuses on what it takes to protect crypto from not just hacks as North Korea’s but also from an even more devastating threat — what’s known as a “majority,” or a “51%,” attack. In these more serious attacks, a bad actor would gain control of more than 50% of the crypto network, which could in turn lead the crypto’s market value to plunge or even be wiped out altogether.
Enthusiasts believe that cryptocurrencies are protected from such attacks by the huge costs involved in gaining majority control — costs that are high enough to dissuade bad actors from wanting to mount such attacks in the first place. But Budish says there is an Achilles’ heel to their argument: For this protection to be credible, the cost of majority control must grow in lockstep with a cryptocurrency as it becomes more economically significant. Budish points out that “securing against a $1 billion attack is 1,000 times more expensive than securing against a $1 million attack.”
Yikes so much more education is needed
reply
EXACTLY!!! Like when I was reading this I can’t believe market watch would publish this terrible opinion piece
reply
Totally ridiculous
reply
The 51% attack makes me think of Dwight Schrute telling his coworkers "If I'm dead, you all have been dead for weeks."
reply
reply
Lol bro couldn't speak to anyone who knows more than him before writing this? Is it really that hard?
reply
Came for the LOL
was not disappointed!
reply
159 sats \ 0 replies \ @Cje95 27 Feb
Lmao this is hilarious! I'd be much more scared of North Korea gaining quantum computing and wreaking havoc on BTC over this pure BS 😂
reply
51% attack?! 🤣🤣🤣
That's pretty preposterous these days.
reply
Is it?
reply
In my humble opinion yes. If you know anything about the hack it was due to human error. The thieves tricked the ETH holder. It’s not like they took a segwit address and found the private key via some magical hacking skills. ETH is very complex thus the attack surface is high. Bybit found out the hard way yet this article is blaming bitcoin saying it can’t be trusted because of this hack
reply
I'm with you that the article is terribly written by an uninformed person (AI?). Of course Bitcoin had nothing to do with the ByBit hack.
I'm asking whether is really preposterous to be concerned about a 51% attack.
Especially when just two entities have mined over half the blocks in the last year.
reply
This article is so terrible
reply
If a person reads this and doesnt know better, l can understand why they would be scared. For the people who use and understand bitcoin, a 51% attack would seem very unlikely.
reply
Proof we're still so early
reply