Just published a new article: a deep dive into quantifying double spend risk for confirmed transactions. https://blog.lopp.net/how-many-bitcoin-confirmations-is-enough/
Discussion
TLDR?
Foundry has too much hashrate
TL;DR use the tool I just released: https://jlopp.github.io/bitcoin-confirmation-risk-calculator/
According to this itβs 60 conf before your transaction is risk free from reorg.
β¦. Against the risk of a mining pool doing a double spend attack, which they are incentivized not to do
Pools are certainly disincentived from performing attacks; they would likely lose a ton of business if they were to do so. And miners in general are long-term holders that are disinclined to harm folk's confidence in the system.
However, a pool can still be a single point of failure; someone could exploit a vulnerability to hijack a pool for a short period of time.
Solid take.
Cant they possibly hack all pools, or 3-4 major ones and do some real damage?
How would you hack a pool or pools towards a hash attack? Youβd have to own them for some period of time (~60 confs X 10 minutes is 10 hours)?
Would stratumv2 mitigate this .. hmm i should read your thing first probably π
28% risk of reorg after 6 confirmation means there is a 78% chance it wonβt happen or 28% chance it will succeed. You should calculate the cost or and risk to the pool when trying to do this
chatgpt summary: The number of confirmations required to secure Bitcoin transactions against double-spending depends on the attacker's hash rate, and the current state of the mining ecosystem. As of now, the 6 block confirmation rule requires 60 confirmations due to high hashrate attackers like Foundry with 36% global hash rate.
you're producing such high-quality content. Thanks for that.
#[0]
to me 1 is enough yup !
i know some tech folks did double spending BTC on mainnet back in 2015 or 2017 era during forking time - wont happen now
Confirmed like confirmed by block < 100000 confirmed?
> your need ADD share "NOSTR" button in ur blog site
> also pools doesnot control the hashes - miners do --- this part becomes a confusion many times
>https://cryptoslate.com/cryptos/proof-of-work/
excellent article thanks
I only support POW #public #blockchains whose node spec like BTC 1CoreCPU 1GBRAM HDD1TB thats it
That is putting things in perspective. I'd be interested to understand what economic incentives there are to attack the network. We could make some assumptions that the value of BTC drops to 0 after such an attack and therefore, value must be transferred outside the chain somehow. An easy way to make money would be to short BTC against fiat. The decision to attack would depend on the miner's current value of hardware (minus some resale value that might also drop) and future earnings from that hardware.
Thanks for this. It's a great in-depth analysis with some useful conclusions. One thing I wish someone would look into is the actual cost to pull off an attack vs. payment value. Stated another way, how much would it cost to buy insurance on a transaction of a certain value for a certain number of confirmations. I think if you do the math, it's perfectly fine to take transactions of less than ~$1,000 with zero confirmations in most cases.
Great read. Thank you for the info. Learning everyday here thanks to content like this :)
Very interesting. I had no idea.
Your post is getting a lot of likes.
Added to the https://member.cash/hot feed
When do you think stratum v2 gets implemented?
There was also an article published about you today ππ