Equilibrium 51% Attack Cost of Bitcoin Network
Nifty little tool showing the estimated cost of controlling the majority of the Bitcoin network: https://www.resallex.com/bitcoin/brix Would love to see something similar for the Tor network - my guess is that the cost there is probably at least an order-of-magnitude lower, but that's just my intuition. R
From the site..
Introduction
*Equilibrium 51% Attack Cost:* This is a metric attempting to calculate the total present value cost required to attack the Bitcoin network through majority hashing power (51% attack). The metric is meant to be viewed as a snapshot in time as if an attacker decided to invest in attacking the network under the current conditions. *BRIX Score:* "Bitcoin Robustness Index" - The relative rank of Bitcoin's 51% attack cost compared to annual military expenditures among all nations. Method This metric is, in essence, equal to 51% of the present value ("PV") of all future revenues derived from bitcoin mining using current Mt. Gox prices. Revenues include both block rewards and transaction fees. The purpose behind using PV as a measuring tool is to approximate the incentives to miners to build upon the Bitcoin network. The measure can be viewed as an aggregate of all the cost-benefit analyses done by individual miners. We believe this is superior to other methods of calculating the attack cost, including variables such as current hash rates and current capital costs, because the model is independent of technology advancements. Under the equilibrium model, miners will continue to invest in equipment until they reach the point where marginal cost equals marginal revenue (the point of profit maximization). Under perfect competition (of which bitcoin mining is effectively), this point will also be where aggregate cost equals aggregate revenue. If we assume the variables that can affect mining revenue are held constant ($/btc & transaction fees), then it is easy to calculate aggregate revenue and therefore also aggregate cost. Since we know aggregate revenue equals aggregate cost, by calculating 51% of aggregate revenue we effectively calculate 51% of the aggregate cost to miners.
We calculated this metric by discounting each block reward (210,000 blocks) as if it were an annuity and then discounting it further to its present value. Then, we added estimated transaction fees based off historical records. Assumptions
This metric is meant to represent a model at equilibrium. Therefore it represents a snapshot of 51% of the incentive to miners at the current price and current transaction fee levels. The idea is that miners are willing to invest in the network as long as it is profitable to continue doing so. We assume the following:
- * Rational Actors: * We assume all mining participants are rational actors and strictly pursue profit maximization. We ignore all other motivations, including political, emotional, and reputational. All other heuristics and biases are ignored. - * Static Variables: * We assume that the variables in the model are static, and therefore represent a 'snapshot in time'. There are no growth forecasts for either price or transaction fees. - * Perfect Competition: * We assume that all miners and potential attackers have access to the same technology, resources, and information. There is no technological advantage for any party that would exclusively decrease mining costs or otherwise acquire mining equipment faster. - * Discount Rate: 8% * Our model discounts future cash flows by 8%.
This is a bit self delusional. "Use your opponent's strength against him", sway pools to support your cause. Or better yet: start pools with possibly negative profit. Pay-per-share but you payout a tad more than you actually could. That way people will consider your service the most profitable, ergo the best, and flock to give you shares at an extremely discounted rated (it only costs you whatever you add to it). Better yet: force existing pool owners a: out of business, b: to support you! Better yet: subvert pool managing computers! Make the machines support you! Or do MITM attacks to get the shares instead of the pools! Maybe just subverting the developers (enough are US based, hint hint) to write a teensy exploit. Just cracking the central exchanges and everything that accepts Bitcoin will also cause a rather big stir. A small division breaking into bitcoin-accepting services and selling the bitcoins will lower the price directly and decrease trust significantly. Visa and Mastercard not providing services to Bitcoin accepting customers would also be quite effective. Bascially, the cost is lower legally than it is otherwise. And a 51% attack can be solved with a trust model, should people wish to do so. Lastly you must imagine there's plenty of computing power available to most governments on that list. Temporarily using that power for the time of the attack is a fairly good idea (depending on what you want to do with a 51% attack), and not the full price at all. A cost/hr would be much more useful (imho).
participants (2)
-
Lodewijk andré de la porte
-
Rich Jones