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.
I’m not refusing to comprehend anything, you are refusing to catch my point I guess.
A 51% attack cannot change the rules of the network. They could engage in a fork and create a new network with the new rules, but it does not mean the original network ceases to exist.
So yes they could 51% attack to fork and create a new network that has abilities to censor transactions.
But the original
Bitcoin network that I AM TALKING ABOUT, can not be changed, not without a community consensus to upgrade the protocol and adopt the change. Which is when all miners of the old network would switch to the new network. Any upgrade BIP that involves censorship, is never going to pass the consensus.
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.
I’m not refusing to comprehend anything, you are refusing to catch my point I guess.
A 51% attack cannot change the rules of the network. They could engage in a fork and create a new network with the new rules, but it does not mean the original network ceases to exist.
So yes they could 51% attack to fork and create a new network that has abilities to censor transactions.
But the original Bitcoin network that I AM TALKING ABOUT, can not be changed, not without a community consensus to upgrade the protocol and adopt the change. Which is when all miners of the old network would switch to the new network. Any upgrade BIP that involves censorship, is never going to pass the consensus.