new | show | ask | jobs Github

max_ 4 days ago

>Sustaining this attack is estimated to cost $75 million per day.

This is how proof of work systems operate.

They are very expensive to attack but very cheap to recover from.

$75m per day is clearly unstainable.

Soon they will give up and the network will recover cheaply.

The attack is more of a nuisance than the end of Monero.

▲

idiotsecant 4 days ago | parent | next [-]

The problem is not that the system is constantly under attack. It's that it can no longer be trusted to be secure. Nobody with money on chain will say 'oh well, probably nobody will steal my money today'.

▲

do_not_redeem 4 days ago | parent [-]

A 51% attack doesn't let you steal random people's money.

▲

idiotsecant 4 days ago | parent [-]

It absolutely does, just not directly. Say that you have 100k fiat equivilent in monero and I demonstrate a successful monero double-spend attack. How much do you think your monero is worth?

▲

do_not_redeem 4 days ago | parent [-]

My man. What do you think the word "steal" means? You can't just redefine words because you don't like new technology.

Do we need to drop down to 1st grade story problems?

---

Alice has 1 apple. Eve has 0 apples.

Eve steals Alice's apple.

Now Alice has 0 apples. Eve has 1 apple.

---

Alice has 1 XMR. Eve has 0 XMR.

Eve 51% attacks Alice's network.

How many XMR does Alice have? How many XMR does Eve have? Show your work.

▲

idiotsecant 3 days ago | parent [-]

The only reason this seems like an unusual definition to you is that you haven't thought about it very hard, yet. The critical thing is not how many XMR you have. It's what value those XMR carry. If I create from thin air 1000 XMR and it's known to the market I didn't just 'make' a certain amount of value, I made myself richer by making a lot of people less so. I stole value from them and gave it to myself, just like someone stealing a ham at the market. The only difference is that instead of burning one ham of value for one ham of benefit, I burn many ham of value for one ham of benefit.

	▲	aydyn 2 days ago \| parent [-]
		This is an excellent explanation and I'd also point out that it generalizes to fiat not just crypto. But its nice not to think about that too much.

▲

arrowsmith 4 days ago | parent | prev [-]

> $75m per day is clearly sustainable.

Is this a typo or am I misunderstanding something?

▲

transcriptase 4 days ago | parent | next [-]

I’m guessing it’s implied that the return would be higher than $75m a day.

▲

max_ 4 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Thanks.

"unsustainable"

	▲	m_herrlich 4 days ago \| parent [-]
		now it says unstainable Also true!

▲

sschueller 4 days ago | parent | prev [-]

Depends what the goal is. A state that wants to break the anonymity of the system doesn't care about $75m per day, specifically a state that can just print that...

	▲	woah 4 days ago \| parent \| next [-]
		I'm not familiar with Monero's privacy system, so I can't say for sure, but it is very, very unlikely that a reorg could in any way break anonymity.
	▲	fruitworks 4 days ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		Reorgs dont break anonyminity