Connect with us


Miners won’t attack Litecoin [LTC] and “kill cash chikun” – Charlie Lee

Anirudh VK



Miners won't attack Litecoin [LTC] and "kill cash chikun" - Charlie Lee
Source: Unsplash

After his tweet yesterday announcing the 51% attack on Bitcoin Gold, Litecoin’s Charlie Lee proved the dominance of Litecoin in all altcoins that used Scrypt for Proof of Work.

Scrypt is a password-key based derivation function. The function was created by Colin Percival and was specifically designed to make it costly to perform large-scale hardware attacks.

The Tweet in question was part of the thread that emerged from Lee’s original tweet about the hack. He said:

“Bitcoin Gold got 51% attacked. Miners have no issue with attacking BTG because if it dies, they could easily switch to mine another coin that also uses Equihash POW. This is not the case for Bitcoin/Litecoin where they are the dominant coin for their respective mining algorithms.”

User Emin Gun Sirer said to this:

“Any time someone says “A miner would never do that, it would be against their rational self-interest,” remember this bit of news from just this week, and there are many others.”

Lee replied with:

“Litecoin is 99% dominant in Scrypt PoW. LTC has network hashrate of 301 TH/s. The next largest non-merged-mined Scrypt coin (GAME) only has 2 TH/s. Takes less than 1% of the LTC network to 51% attack other Scypt coins. But miners won’t attack Litecoin and kill their cash chikun.”

This was backed up by a screenshot from CoinWarz. CoinWarz is a service that provides cryptocurrency mining profitability data and includes data of the total hashpower consumed by each blockchain in terms of hashrate. The hashrate is the power consumed by the network to continue being functional.

A 51% attack is where an attacker takes control of 51% of the blockchain’s hashpower and is hence able to have majority power over the rest of the chain. This includes the ability to orchestrate double-spending attacks, which is what happened with Bitcoin Gold.

Lee explains that with a hashrate of 301 TeraHash [106] per second, only 1% of that power would be required to orchestrate a 51% attack on the next biggest Scrypt coin, GameCredits. GameCredits has a hashpower of close to 2 TeraHash per second, which is about 0.66% of Litecoin’s hashpower.

This ensured an utter dominance of Litecoin in coins based on Scrypt and gives it additional security, as miners cannot switch to another network after orchestrating an attack. The coin is also protected from attack by ensuring profits for miners. As said by Lee, the miners won’t kill their “cash chikun”.

Twitter user Thomas Harpointner reaffirmed his faith in Charlie Lee and Litecoin, by saying:

“Kudos to @SatoshiLite. I’ve held #LTC through big price swings but through it all, I’ve paid & received payments with #LTC. Each transaction has been super-fast, inexpensive and 100% reliable. Long-term, speed, reliability, security and low-cost will win.

Subscribe to AMBCrypto’s Newsletter

Follow us on Telegram | Twitter | Facebook

Anirudh VK is a full-time journalist at AMBCrypto. He has a passion for writing and interest towards the future of blockchain technology and cryptocurrencies. He does not own any cryptocurrencies currently.


Bitcoin SV [BSV] gets hit with another reorg as multiple blocks get orphaned, including a 128 MB block

Akash Anand



Bitcoin SV [BSV] gets hit with another reorg as multiple blocks get orphaned, including a 128 MB block
Source: Pixabay

Bitcoin SV [BSV] and its proponents have been making headlines over the past couple of weeks, either due to developments or because of comments made by its major proponents, Craig Wright, the chief scientist at nChain, and Calvin Ayre.

The network was also hit with several members of the cryptocurrency community alleging that the cryptocurrency itself is a sham without any use cases, as evidenced by its delisting on several popular cryptocurrency exchanges like Binance, Kraken and Shapeshift.

The latest news added salt to BSV’s wounds after it was revealed that the network went through another blockchain reorganization on a 128 MB block. This fact was pointed out by Nikita Zhavoronkov, the lead developer of Blockchair, who had tweeted:

“Whoops! $BSV has experienced yet another reorg, this time 6 (six!) consecutive blocks were orphaned (#578640–578645), this chain included a 128 MB block #578644 🤦‍♂️ The network was basically stuck for 1.5 hours, and this shows that even 6 confirmations are not enough.”

Orphaned blocks are valid blocks which are not part of the main chain. There are ways that they can occur naturally when two miners produce blocks at similar times or they can be a result of an attacker with enough hashing power using it for nefarious activities like reversing transactions.

A major reason why this reorg event made news was that a major 128 MB block was stuck in transaction, something that was not supposed to occur according to the initial claims made by the SV camp. Supporters of the cryptocurrency, however, have stated that despite being slower than promised, the transactions on the block settled faster than that on a Bitcoin Core block.

One supporter of BSV, mboyd1, tweeted:

“Orphaned blocks are a feature, not a bug”

To this tweet, Zyo, another cryptocurrency enthusiast replied:

“yes, but orphaning 6 blocks in a row is not good, that means that 6 confirmations is not safe. It’s a bug because the 100+ MB take way too long to propagate and validate. There is a reason why BCH doesn’t have [yet] 100+ MB blocks.”

Subscribe to AMBCrypto’s Newsletter

Continue Reading