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.
There are no rules being changed though. All I'm saying is that merely creating a new, longest chain without a specific transaction is possible given current paradigms, and given sufficient incentive, may happen under current global regimes.
Bitcoin is purely based on longest-chain-wins, with 0 other considering factors. If a longer competing chain without a transaction is created, there is no consideration for the transaction, and is treated as never happened in favor of the new longest chain. A sufficently large/organized, censorious, pool(s) can abuse this to erase transactions in a deliberately censorious manner. The only question is feasibility (How concentrated is mining power currently?), and incentive (Could say, a Harris regime bully miner pools to deliberately exclude Russian transactions under threat of legal action, hypothetically?)
It’s feasible if the govt pays all of the big pools simultaneously to do their bidding.
It’s also possible the govt shuts down the exchanges
It’s also possible the govt enforces ISP’s to block BTC node packets.
But … imo…. None of this is really feasible to achieve on a global scale… for example many of the largest nations have to come together and agree on it…. I’m talking about China, Russia, USA, India… all deciding and agreeing on something together…. That is unfeasible.
All of this was a lot more feasible before 2017… but today, the amount of additional power and resources that would be required… is too great… and the collaboration between enemy nations… is too improbable.
Btw what is the entire point of this argument we are having… are you a gold/silver maximalist? Not dogging you if you are, just wondering why are we arguing to begin with hahah
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.
There are no rules being changed though. All I'm saying is that merely creating a new, longest chain without a specific transaction is possible given current paradigms, and given sufficient incentive, may happen under current global regimes.
Bitcoin is purely based on longest-chain-wins, with 0 other considering factors. If a longer competing chain without a transaction is created, there is no consideration for the transaction, and is treated as never happened in favor of the new longest chain. A sufficently large/organized, censorious, pool(s) can abuse this to erase transactions in a deliberately censorious manner. The only question is feasibility (How concentrated is mining power currently?), and incentive (Could say, a Harris regime bully miner pools to deliberately exclude Russian transactions under threat of legal action, hypothetically?)
It’s feasible if the govt pays all of the big pools simultaneously to do their bidding.
It’s also possible the govt shuts down the exchanges
It’s also possible the govt enforces ISP’s to block BTC node packets.
But … imo…. None of this is really feasible to achieve on a global scale… for example many of the largest nations have to come together and agree on it…. I’m talking about China, Russia, USA, India… all deciding and agreeing on something together…. That is unfeasible.
All of this was a lot more feasible before 2017… but today, the amount of additional power and resources that would be required… is too great… and the collaboration between enemy nations… is too improbable.
Btw what is the entire point of this argument we are having… are you a gold/silver maximalist? Not dogging you if you are, just wondering why are we arguing to begin with hahah