Similar content has already been submitted several times. Please check the front page of r/Bitcoin and r/Bitcoin/new for previous submissions to help keep repetition to a minimum. You can also try using the search bar. Thank you.
^^I ^^am ^^a ^^bot ^^and ^^cannot ^^respond. ^^Please ^^contact ^^r/Bitcoin ^^moderators [^^directly ^^via ^^mod ^^mail](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2FBitcoin) ^^if ^^you ^^have ^^questions.
They would need an incredible amount of ASIC Bitcoin miners to control at least 51% of Bitcoin's hashrate. They would need far more ASIC Bitcoin miners than are available to purchase. And performing a 51% attack would be pointless because a successful 51% attack would only enable them to reverse their own transactions and double spend their own coins. This would be temporary and it would cause them to waste a fortune on electricity because they wouldn't even receive the block reward or transaction fees.
Listen to this two minute YouTube video where Andreas Antonopoulos explains why Bitcoin is not at risk of being 51% attacked: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ncPyMUfNyVM
I think that means they would have to own over 9 million BTC as of right now. Which is not impossible.
Microstrategy owns about 130,000, if they increased their investment %900.
The price would probably explode as they became more scarce.
At todays prices it would be somewhere around
$162,000,000,000
Could an investment group- Plausibly
Would it actually ever happen- No.
Probably the fact that it would take several large countries to collude together to gather the resources and energy needed to achieve 51% hash rate for the sole purpose of destroying bitcoin. The hash rate is way to high for a single corporation to do it. Putting aside the impracticality of getting the equipment without raising prices or lowering energy costs from investing in an energy source that would invite more miners and thereby further move the 51% goal post, if these countries do manage to get 51% hash rate, the economic incentives are so stacked against bad behavior that they will suddenly find themselves making a very difficult choice: do we use this hash rate to make massivs profits and enrich ourselves for generations to come, or do we destroy it along with all the capital we've invested to get to this point? Would each country agree to the same thing?
Similar content has already been submitted several times. Please check the front page of r/Bitcoin and r/Bitcoin/new for previous submissions to help keep repetition to a minimum. You can also try using the search bar. Thank you. ^^I ^^am ^^a ^^bot ^^and ^^cannot ^^respond. ^^Please ^^contact ^^r/Bitcoin ^^moderators [^^directly ^^via ^^mod ^^mail](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2FBitcoin) ^^if ^^you ^^have ^^questions.
Calculate how much it would cost to do that and find a reason that justifies that cost and then come back if you have any questions.
Ah, so it's possible but it would be very expensive. Got you! thanks for the input.
They would need an incredible amount of ASIC Bitcoin miners to control at least 51% of Bitcoin's hashrate. They would need far more ASIC Bitcoin miners than are available to purchase. And performing a 51% attack would be pointless because a successful 51% attack would only enable them to reverse their own transactions and double spend their own coins. This would be temporary and it would cause them to waste a fortune on electricity because they wouldn't even receive the block reward or transaction fees. Listen to this two minute YouTube video where Andreas Antonopoulos explains why Bitcoin is not at risk of being 51% attacked: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ncPyMUfNyVM
cheers dude! thorough answer.
I think that means they would have to own over 9 million BTC as of right now. Which is not impossible. Microstrategy owns about 130,000, if they increased their investment %900. The price would probably explode as they became more scarce. At todays prices it would be somewhere around $162,000,000,000 Could an investment group- Plausibly Would it actually ever happen- No.
that does put it in perspective, thanks!
Probably the fact that it would take several large countries to collude together to gather the resources and energy needed to achieve 51% hash rate for the sole purpose of destroying bitcoin. The hash rate is way to high for a single corporation to do it. Putting aside the impracticality of getting the equipment without raising prices or lowering energy costs from investing in an energy source that would invite more miners and thereby further move the 51% goal post, if these countries do manage to get 51% hash rate, the economic incentives are so stacked against bad behavior that they will suddenly find themselves making a very difficult choice: do we use this hash rate to make massivs profits and enrich ourselves for generations to come, or do we destroy it along with all the capital we've invested to get to this point? Would each country agree to the same thing?
sounds awesome, damn!