Again, your willful misinterpreting does not negate the fact that miners can, and do, ignore transactions that are not in their best interest. Quite simply, if that best interest is ignoring certain transactions from choice addresses, it only needs 51% of the hashing power to actually keep you off the blockchain. At current times, if Antpool and Foundry USA felt the need to keep you from using Bitcoin, they can.
51% attacks are not hypothetical, and can easily achieve this goal. It does not hurt their revenue, because again, there is no canonical chain asides from the longest chain, which can just as easily exist without your transaction.
Additionally, 51% attacks are easier now than ever, with the proliferation of ASIC farms, it is easier than ever for a well funded state actor IE USA, China, etc to subsume mining companies and execute a 51% attack. This is not a new concern, nor is it a small one.
You need only be faster than the chain you are trying to supplant, to cause a reorganization. If that means the current mining establishment creating a new chain without a transaction, that's only 51% of hash power, not an additional 100%.
We have been talking about established miners rejecting transactions, stop strawmanning it as a outsider attack.
A 51% attack and having 51% of the hashpower are two very different things.
A 51% attack can cause a fork in the chain, which has happened before, infact it’s effectively how BCH and BSV came into existence. Having 51% of the horsepower does not mean you will be the miner of every block.
If it’s a 51% attack to fork, it does not mean they can change the rules of the chain they forking, they can only change the rules on their new fork, on their own chain.
I’m not ‘strawmanning’ anything, what you are trying to argue as possible censorship is downright bullshit lol, none of your ‘arguments’ matter, because no matter what as long as there are miners on the chain, eventually your transaction will get picked up. Regardless if the biggest pools are trying to ignore your transaction or block.
But hey what do I know… I’ve only lived off of, and developed on blockchains for 8 years.
If someone had 51% of the hashpower of the network, on average would they not outmine the remaining 49%. If that's the case, would not a 51% attack, not for a double-spend, but a no-spend be achievable? This is not some crazy leap of logic here, the refusal to comprehend is astounding.
Again, your willful misinterpreting does not negate the fact that miners can, and do, ignore transactions that are not in their best interest. Quite simply, if that best interest is ignoring certain transactions from choice addresses, it only needs 51% of the hashing power to actually keep you off the blockchain. At current times, if Antpool and Foundry USA felt the need to keep you from using Bitcoin, they can.
51% attacks are not hypothetical, and can easily achieve this goal. It does not hurt their revenue, because again, there is no canonical chain asides from the longest chain, which can just as easily exist without your transaction.
Additionally, 51% attacks are easier now than ever, with the proliferation of ASIC farms, it is easier than ever for a well funded state actor IE USA, China, etc to subsume mining companies and execute a 51% attack. This is not a new concern, nor is it a small one.
That’s not true about 51%, it would just mean I may need to wait twice as long for my transaction to go through.
They would need 100% of the hashpower, which is impossible to achieve due to at home private miners, and other large pools.
Just, no.
You need only be faster than the chain you are trying to supplant, to cause a reorganization. If that means the current mining establishment creating a new chain without a transaction, that's only 51% of hash power, not an additional 100%.
We have been talking about established miners rejecting transactions, stop strawmanning it as a outsider attack.
A 51% attack and having 51% of the hashpower are two very different things.
A 51% attack can cause a fork in the chain, which has happened before, infact it’s effectively how BCH and BSV came into existence. Having 51% of the horsepower does not mean you will be the miner of every block.
If it’s a 51% attack to fork, it does not mean they can change the rules of the chain they forking, they can only change the rules on their new fork, on their own chain.
I’m not ‘strawmanning’ anything, what you are trying to argue as possible censorship is downright bullshit lol, none of your ‘arguments’ matter, because no matter what as long as there are miners on the chain, eventually your transaction will get picked up. Regardless if the biggest pools are trying to ignore your transaction or block.
But hey what do I know… I’ve only lived off of, and developed on blockchains for 8 years.
Read not, comprehend not, know not.
If someone had 51% of the hashpower of the network, on average would they not outmine the remaining 49%. If that's the case, would not a 51% attack, not for a double-spend, but a no-spend be achievable? This is not some crazy leap of logic here, the refusal to comprehend is astounding.