the more power you have, the more blocks in a row you can get. if you want to continually degrade the network, at least >50% is required.

many people focus on the double spending aspect of re-writing history, but the reality is that there will probably never be a big enough incentive to spend the money to make double spends. anyone who is going to spend the money to get >50% is going to attempt to take down the network, and all that is ever required is just greater than 50%. they can always re-write history, eventually, at that point. locking in blocks with each software release is just a very small band-aid and does not really do anything effective since trying to re-write "ancient" history is pointless when they can just make sure no new transactions ever confirm, or any that do will eventually be reversed.

um I did say why in the post. to take down the network. if bitcoin starts becoming a real threat to the established financial institution, it would be pocket change to them and by far in their best interest

Yes, higher hashrate means the attacker can close the gap faster. With 51% or 50.001% he is guaranteed to outpace the network from any disadvantage (say 6 blocks), eventually. The guarantee doesn't tell you how long it will take, and in fact with 50.001% it would take on average about 6 years (it's random so it could be much less). With 51% it's 2 days. (These estimates are with a very simplified model, actual numbers could be different).

Yes, he has a chance of success but no guarantee.

A simplified model gives a result of 5 hours, but finding a more accurate estimate requires some work.

your title really should be changed from Hero Member to Bitcoin Information Minister.

how do u arrive at that number?

really, we're going to take a gross exaggeration so out of context as to call it "ridiculous"? even though it has surely been used in the same manner many times before. am I writing for an esteemed publication or on a fucking message board?

besides, comparing the bitcoin network in integer operations when supercomputers are measured in floating point operations is well-known around here to be a misguided comparison and only goes to show that cypherdoc is, once again, trying to be deceptive to people asking legitimate questions in what I can only see as being a shill for his own personal gain. he may not like my opinion or my exaggeration, but that is not course for conflation with obvious intent to confuse and derail

trying to be deceptive?  i just asked you to explain your claim of "pocket change".  you are one sensitive dude.

shill for personal gain?  i am just one of many who have a vested interest in Bitcoin around here.

how about you and Encoin?  just who has a vested interest?  how's that going btw?

confuse and derail?  you have problems.

Cypherdoc, get a clue or gtfo. https://bt.irlbtc.com/view/52166.msg623111#msg623111