51% ATTACK ON ETHEREUM MORE DIFFICULT THAN ON BITCOIN — JUSTIN DRAKE

Last updated: June 20, 2025, 01:36 | Written by: Gavin Wood

The security of blockchain networks is a perpetual topic of debate, especially as these decentralized systems grow in value and influence.Recently, Ethereum Foundation researcher and Merge architect Justin Drake reignited this discussion by drawing stark contrasts between Ethereum and Bitcoin’s security models. Justin Drake, a prominent Ethereum researcher, pointed out Bitcoin s so-called vulnerability to a 51% attack. He estimated that an adversary with access to about $10 billion could theoreticallyDrake argues that launching a successful 51% attack on Bitcoin is significantly cheaper and thus more feasible than doing so on Ethereum.According to Drake's estimations, such an attack on Bitcoin could cost in the neighborhood of $10 billion.This assertion has sparked considerable discussion, prompting a deeper examination of the factors that contribute to the distinct security profiles of each blockchain.

This article delves into the reasons behind Drake’s claim, exploring the nuances of Bitcoin's and Ethereum's consensus mechanisms, the costs associated with mounting a 51% attack, and the social and economic defenses that protect each network.We will examine the implications of these differences and address common questions about the potential vulnerabilities of both cryptocurrencies.

Understanding 51% Attacks

A 51% attack, also known as a majority attack, occurs when a single entity or group gains control of more than half of a blockchain network’s computing power (in Proof-of-Work systems) or staking power (in Proof-of-Stake systems).This control enables the attacker to manipulate the blockchain by:

Reversing transactions, effectively double-spending their cryptocurrency.
Preventing certain transactions from being confirmed.
Modifying the order of transactions.
Preventing other miners or validators from mining new blocks.

While the attacker cannot create new coins out of thin air (except in specific scenarios related to replay attacks), the ability to manipulate the blockchain can severely undermine its integrity and trust in the network. Ethereum Merge architect Justin Drake told Cointelegraph that he believes it would be cheaper to launch a 51% attack on Bitcoin than on Ethereum.Drake said it would be much cheaper to 51% attacThe potential for such an attack is a key consideration in evaluating the security of any blockchain.

Bitcoin’s Proof-of-Work (PoW) Security Model

Bitcoin operates on a Proof-of-Work (PoW) consensus mechanism. Ethereum researcher Justin Drake told Cointelegraph that launching a 51% attack on Bitcoin would be much cheaper than on Ethereum, estimating the cost at around $10 billion.In PoW, miners compete to solve complex cryptographic puzzles, and the first miner to solve the puzzle gets to add a new block of transactions to the blockchain.This process requires significant computational power and electricity, which is intended to make it expensive and difficult for an attacker to gain control of the network.

The Cost of Attacking Bitcoin

Justin Drake estimates that launching a 51% attack on Bitcoin would cost around $10 billion. According to ChainCatcher news and a report by Cointelegraph, Ethereum researcher Justin Drake stated that launching a 51% attack on Bitcoin is cheaper than on Ethereum, costing about 10 billion USD.This figure primarily accounts for the cost of acquiring the necessary hardware (ASICs – Application-Specific Integrated Circuits) and the electricity needed to power them.While $10 billion is a substantial sum, Drake argues that it is within the reach of some nation-states or well-resourced organizations, making Bitcoin theoretically vulnerable.

However, it’s important to note that simply acquiring the hardware and electricity isn't the end of the story.Other factors come into play that could make such an attack more difficult:

ASIC Availability: Acquiring a sufficient quantity of specialized mining hardware quickly and discreetly would be a logistical challenge.The supply chain would need to be manipulated, raising suspicion.
Power Consumption: Running a network that consumes a massive amount of electricity would be noticeable and could attract unwanted attention.
Social Consequences: A successful 51% attack would severely damage Bitcoin's reputation and value, potentially rendering the investment in the attack worthless.

Despite these challenges, the core issue remains that acquiring the hardware and electricity represents a relatively straightforward, albeit expensive, path to potentially compromising the Bitcoin network. 以太坊開發者質疑比特幣 51% 攻擊成本過低，引爆兩大鏈安全架構與社會協議防禦力的激烈論戰。 51% attack on Ethereum moreThis contrasts with the more complex and costly requirements for attacking Ethereum.

Ethereum's Proof-of-Stake (PoS) Security Model

Ethereum transitioned from Proof-of-Work to Proof-of-Stake (PoS) through the Merge. According to Cointelegraph, Ethereum researcher Justin Drake stated that launching a 51% attack on Bitcoin is less costly compared to Ethereum, requiring approximately $10 billion.In PoS, validators stake their ETH (Ether, the native cryptocurrency of Ethereum) to participate in the block creation and validation process. Today we are joined by Justin Drake an Ethereum researcher that collaborated on the ETH 2.0 consensus change. We talk about variations of mining attacks on BInstead of competing to solve cryptographic puzzles, validators are randomly selected to propose new blocks, and other validators attest to the validity of those blocks. Ethereum Merge architect Justin Drake told Cointelegraph that he believes it would be cheaper to launch a 51% attack on Bitcoin thanIf a validator acts maliciously, their staked ETH can be slashed (penalized or destroyed), incentivizing honest behavior.

The Cost of Attacking Ethereum

While Drake doesn’t explicitly specify a dollar figure for attacking Ethereum, he implies it would be significantly more expensive than attacking Bitcoin.The primary reason for this is the structure of PoS and the associated defensive mechanisms.

Here's a breakdown of why attacking Ethereum is more difficult:

Capital Lockup: To launch a 51% attack on Ethereum, an attacker would need to acquire and stake at least 51% of the total ETH in circulation.This is a massive capital outlay. To control the contents of future blocks, at least 51% of the total staked ETH is required, and to rewrite history, over 66% of the total stake is needed. The Ethereum protocol would destroy these assets in the 33% or 51% attack scenarios and by social consensus in the 66% attack scenario. More on defending Ethereum proof-of-stake from attackersWhile theoretically possible, it's far more difficult than acquiring mining hardware.
Slashing: If an attacker attempts to manipulate the blockchain, their staked ETH is at risk of being slashed. Justin Drake, one of Ethereum's lead developers, discusses inevitable bugs and the network becoming World War III-grade resistant. if we do suffer a 51% attack, we can precisely identify theThis means that the attacker could lose a substantial portion or all of their investment.
Social Coordination: Even if an attacker managed to acquire 51% of the staked ETH, the Ethereum community could coordinate a response, such as a hard fork that invalidates the attacker's stake and restores the integrity of the blockchain.This social defense mechanism adds another layer of security that is difficult to overcome.
Economic Consequences: Attempting to acquire a substantial amount of ETH would drive up the price, making the attack even more expensive.A successful attack would also damage the reputation and value of ETH, reducing the value of the attacker's remaining stake.

Justin Drake's Perspective: Key Differences in Security Frameworks

Justin Drake's argument hinges on the fundamental differences between Proof-of-Work and Proof-of-Stake, particularly the economic and social dynamics they create. Justin Drake, a prominent Ethereum researcher, has drawn attention to what he describes as Bitcoin s vulnerability to a 51% attack. According to his analysis, an adversary with access to roughly $10 billion could theoretically disrupt the Bitcoin network by taking over the majority of its mining power.Here’s a summary of his key points:

Hardware vs. Cointelegraph 51% attack on Ethereum more difficult than on Bitcoin Justin Drake News NewsBTC P2P.org Announces Partnership With Colossus Digital To Launch Institutional Staking With Secure Custody IntegrationCapital: Bitcoin's security relies on expensive hardware and electricity, while Ethereum's security relies on the economic disincentives of staking a large amount of capital.
Cost of Attack: Drake believes the cost of attacking Bitcoin, primarily the cost of hardware and electricity, is manageable for some nation-states.He implies the cost of acquiring and staking a majority of ETH, coupled with the risk of slashing and social coordination, makes attacking Ethereum significantly more challenging.
Social Defense: Drake emphasizes the importance of Ethereum's social defense mechanisms, which can be used to invalidate attacks and restore the blockchain's integrity. Justin Drake, a key Ethereum researcher and architect of the Ethereum Merge, said that launching such an attack on Bitcoin would be much cheaper than on Ethereum, estimating the cost at around $10 billion.These mechanisms are less readily available in Bitcoin, primarily due to its more decentralized and less coordinated governance model.

Social Consensus as a Security Layer

Beyond the technical aspects of PoW and PoS, social consensus plays a crucial role in the security of both Bitcoin and Ethereum. Ethereum Merge architect Justin Drake told Cointelegraph that he believes it would be cheaper to launch a 51% attack on Bitcoin than on Ethereum. Drake said it would be much cheaper to 51% attack Bitcoin and that it would cost on the order of $10 billion. Drake led work on Ethereum s proof-of-stake (PoS) implementation and was a principal architect in the Merge (the full PoSSocial consensus refers to the agreement and cooperation among the community of users, developers, and stakeholders to maintain the integrity of the blockchain.

In the event of a 51% attack, the community can choose to:

Ignore the attacker's manipulated blockchain and continue building on the original chain.
Execute a hard fork, creating a new version of the blockchain that invalidates the attacker's transactions and staked assets.
Implement code changes to make future attacks more difficult.

Ethereum's relatively centralized governance and stronger community coordination make it easier to mobilize a social defense against an attack.While Bitcoin also has a strong community, its more decentralized nature can make it more difficult to achieve consensus on how to respond to an attack.This is where Drake believes Ethereum has a significant advantage.

Addressing Common Questions

Could a 51% attack really happen on Bitcoin or Ethereum?

While theoretically possible, a successful 51% attack on either Bitcoin or Ethereum is highly unlikely due to the significant costs, technical challenges, and potential social and economic consequences. 51% attack on Ethereum more difficult than on Bitcoin Justin Drake Ethereum Merge architect Justin Drake told Cointelegraph that he believes it would be cheaper toThe probability of an attack is low, but the potential impact is high, making it a critical consideration for blockchain security.

What are the potential consequences of a successful 51% attack?

A successful 51% attack could have severe consequences, including:

Double-spending of cryptocurrencies.
Disruption of the network and its services.
Loss of trust in the blockchain and its ecosystem.
Devaluation of the cryptocurrency.

How can blockchain networks be made more resistant to 51% attacks?

There are several ways to enhance a blockchain's resilience to 51% attacks:

Increase the cost of attack: This can be achieved by increasing the computational power required for PoW or the amount of stake required for PoS.
Improve network decentralization: A more decentralized network makes it more difficult for a single entity to gain control of a majority of the resources.
Strengthen social consensus mechanisms: Clear and well-defined procedures for responding to attacks can help the community act quickly and decisively.
Implement technical safeguards: Techniques such as checkpointing and immutability audits can help detect and prevent attacks.

Is Proof-of-Stake inherently more secure than Proof-of-Work?

The debate over the security of PoW vs. Ethereum Merge architect Justin Drake told Cointelegraph that it would be cheaper to launch a 51% attack on Bitcoin than on Ethereum. Drake said it would be much cheaper to 51% attack Bitcoin and that it would cost on the order of $10 billion.PoS is ongoing.PoW has been tested over a longer period and has proven to be relatively secure against attacks. Ethereum Foundation researcher and Merge architect Justin Drake has reopened the debate on blockchain security frameworks by defining some sharp contrasts between Ethereum and Bitcoin. In his latest remarks, Drake put the price of launching a 51% attack on Bitcoin at as low as $10 billion as the asset s block reward and security fundPoS offers different security tradeoffs, with a stronger focus on economic disincentives and social consensus. Ethereum researcher Justin Drake has raised concerns about the security of the Bitcoin blockchain, stating that it could be vulnerable to a 51% attack. He estimates that executing such an attack would require approximately $10 billion and access to 10 gigawatts (GW) of power, a cost he considers manageable for nation.Whether one is ""inherently"" more secure depends on the specific implementation and the assumptions about potential attackers and their motivations.

The Ongoing Evolution of Blockchain Security

The security of blockchain networks is not a static issue. Ethereum Foundation researcher and Merge architect Justin Drake has reopened the debate on blockchain security frameworks by defining some sharp contrasts between Ethereum and Bitcoin. In his latestAs technology evolves and new attack vectors emerge, blockchain developers must continually adapt and improve their security mechanisms.The ongoing debate between Bitcoin and Ethereum security frameworks highlights the importance of critical thinking, research, and continuous innovation in the field of blockchain security.

Future Trends in Blockchain Security

Several trends are shaping the future of blockchain security:

Formal Verification: Using mathematical techniques to prove the correctness of blockchain code and prevent bugs.
Multi-Party Computation (MPC): Enabling secure computation on sensitive data without revealing the data itself.
Zero-Knowledge Proofs (ZKPs): Allowing users to prove that they possess certain information without revealing the information itself.
Quantum-Resistant Cryptography: Developing cryptographic algorithms that are resistant to attacks from quantum computers.

Conclusion: The Security Landscape of Crypto

Justin Drake's assertions regarding the relative ease of launching a 51% attack on Bitcoin compared to Ethereum have sparked a crucial conversation about blockchain security.While both networks have their strengths and weaknesses, Drake's analysis underscores the importance of considering not only the technical aspects of consensus mechanisms but also the economic and social dynamics that influence a blockchain's resilience.

Key takeaways include:

Ethereum's Proof-of-Stake model presents a higher barrier to entry for attackers due to the capital requirements and the risk of slashing.
Ethereum's stronger social consensus mechanisms provide an additional layer of defense against attacks.
Bitcoin, while secure, may be more vulnerable to a well-resourced attacker due to the relatively straightforward path to acquiring mining power.
Blockchain security is an ongoing process that requires continuous innovation and adaptation.

The debate between Bitcoin and Ethereum security frameworks is far from over. Ethereum researcher Justin Drake told Cointelegraph that launching a 51% attack on Bitcoin would be much cheaper than on Ethereum, estimating the cost at around $10 billion. Ethereum Merge architect Justin Drake told Cointelegraph that it would be cheaper to launch a 51% attack on Bitcoin than on Ethereum.As both networks continue to evolve, it's crucial to remain vigilant, explore new security solutions, and foster a culture of critical thinking within the blockchain community. Justin Drake argues Bitcoin 51% attack more feasible than on Ethereum (ETH) due to ETH's PoS social defense. Experts discuss costs, security budget.By doing so, we can help ensure the long-term security and integrity of these transformative technologies.