The Canary of Bitcoin Cash

Welcome, welcome to One Minute Crypto! I’m your host, Chronos, and today, I want
to talk about 51% attacks against the Bitcoin Cash network. When Bitcoin Cash first separated from Bitcoin back
in August of 2017, I predicted that it needed to maintain at least 5% of bitcoin’s security
in order to survive. Otherwise, it would just be too vulnerable to an
attack by bitcoin miners. And since mining power basically tracks price, that
meant it needed to stay above 5% of the price of bitcoin. And it did, for a long time. But two years later, at the time of this recording,
the price of Bitcoin Cash sits below 3%, which means that just 3% of bitcoin’s miners could
band together and overpower the Bitcoin Cash blockchain. And yet it still hasn’t been attacked. What’s going on? It turns out, I was wrong. The threshold is nowhere near 5%, and now we have a big clue about where it actually is. I want to thank our sponsor, by the way, Americas
Cardroom, the most trusted US online poker site. They are bringing us the massive Venom Tournament
starting November 27th, with 6 million dollars in guaranteed prizes, and a million dollars
for first place. Check them out at So the reason we know that security threshold
is nowhere near 5% is because of another blockchain, called Bitcoin SV. It split off from Bitcoin Cash
in November of 2018, and it has been running at about 1% the price of bitcoin. That’s right, just 1%, which means it has
1% of the security of bitcoin — and it hasn’t been attacked either! Bitcoin SV sort of acts as a canary for Bitcoin Cash:
it’s an early indicator of potential danger, because if miners want to attack a weak chain,
they’re likely to target it first, since its defenses are so much lower. It’s like leaving your front door unlocked
all the time, but your neighbor is leaving their front door wide open. Anyone looking to cause trouble would probably
go after the easier target first, and apparently, even 1% of bitcoin’s security is enough to
keep attackers at bay. In a strange way, the continued existence
of Bitcoin SV serves as a sort of shield for Bitcoin Cash. I know this is a strange theory, so I want
to hear your thoughts on this. Post below. I’m Chronos. Thanks for watching!

Posts created 2633

15 thoughts on “The Canary of Bitcoin Cash

  1. This video is sponsored by Americas Cardroom, the most trusted US online poker site. Check out their massive Venom Tournament starting November 27th, with six million dollars in guaranteed prizes!

  2. It's probably more of a question of who has how much to gain by attacking which chain. So if there's not much value to be gained from attacking SV, and there's much more value in attacking BCH, BSV's not having been attacked doesn't say too much.

    What might be a better indicator is how much hashpower moved over to BCH during the SV split to both keep the BCH chain longer (which is mostly symbolic when the two chains have different rulesets), and also to protect against potential reorgs.

  3. Thanks for making this video and thinking about these issues.

    Now that you made this video, if they wanted to attack them both, they would probably attack both at once to nullify the Canary issue. Anyway, none of that really matters.

    When BCH split from BTC the miners made a mistake and supported BTC. The BTC-core massive social engineering efforts and language barriers added up to fool the miners into thinking it was better for them to keep mining BTC. As it turned out, BTC-core had been captured and the corruption of BTC was intentional. It was a massive infiltration-attack on the Bitcoin project. Had the miners supported BCH, Bitcoin (currently known as BCH) would be peer-to-peer electronic cash for the world's people today. BTC would be worth over ten times as much as it is now and the crypto community would be talking about billionaires instead of millionaires.

    I believe the miners mostly see this mistake now and have learned a painful lesson. When BCH was 51% attacked recently by rich people with BTC-troll army support (BSV), the miners showed they would stop mining BTC long enough to defend BCH if needed. That BCH support among BTC miners is why BCH is actually more secure than BTC. BTC has no big hash waiting in the wings to protect it from a 51% attack.

    Of course, BTC is also development-centralized. So, it has no security at all. The development team is captured and BTC is currently being used as an attack on any efforts to create peer-to-peer electronic cash for the world's people. It's owners can steal the coins or do anything they think their massive social engineering efforts can help them get away with (which is a lot) whenever they choose.

  4. Even with only 1% of the hashing power, a "retaliatory strike" is possible with a feather forking attack, right?

  5. The theory isn't strange, it makes sense. However it assumes that the goal of the attacker is to make money.That's a pretty strong assumption. In part because 51%-attacking a chain isn't easy to monetize on and in other part because there might be other motivations to attack a chian. There might well be attackers just simply wanting to harm the chain and wreak havoc. Those might well want to harm BCH specifically and not care about BSV.

  6. The reason why nothing has happened is that literally no one cares about bch. It's a dead project with no recognition that brings little in terms of long term solutions that btc couldn't manage (on or off chain), is way more centralised, roger ver makes himself look rediculous, it isn't getting any actual adoption that compares to btc, no institutional onramps, etc etc
    I think you and this channel are great, but I hope sometime you'll look at your favouritism with a tabula rasa view and maybe just maybe let this dead project be

  7. In what way is the price differential between crypto-currencies either an incentive or an indicator for miners to engage in a 51% attack on one blockchain in particular? Miners have an economic incentive to compete against other miners to maximize their legitimate income; price differentials apparently cause them to switch resources between blockchains. Why would a narrow price differential between currencies cause 51% of the miners to conspire to commit what amounts to a fraud——-that is, double spend. Wouldn't most of the non-mining full nodes detect double spends?

    This would effectively be the miners killing the goose that laid the golden egg. Once the miners are proven untrustworthy who would trust any crypto currency these miners were involved with?.

  8. They attacked Bitcoin gold with a 51%. Perhaps the miners know that the minute they attack bsv, major hash power will be directed to secure it, and the attacker will lose? If you know the aligence of a large army, it need not be standing on the boarder to deter an attack.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Begin typing your search term above and press enter to search. Press ESC to cancel.

Back To Top