Q: Is hacking bitcoin possible?
A: Hacking Bitcoin itself—meaning attempting to compromise the Bitcoin network or its underlying blockchain—is generally considered economically irrational and unviable for several reasons tied to its design and security. Let’s break it down.
Bitcoin operates on a decentralized proof-of-work (PoW) system, secured by a global network of miners who collectively provide immense computational power (currently around 600 exahashes per second as of early 2025). To “hack” Bitcoin in the sense of a 51% attack—where an attacker gains control of the majority of the network’s hash rate—would require an astronomical investment. You’d need to acquire and operate mining hardware surpassing the combined power of all existing miners, plus cover electricity costs, which could run into hundreds of millions or even billions of dollars annually. Estimates suggest that staging such an attack for just one hour might cost upwards of $20-30 million, based on current hash rates and energy prices.
Even if you pulled this off, the payoff is questionable. A 51% attack lets you double-spend coins or block transactions, but it doesn’t let you steal funds from existing wallets (private keys remain secure unless cryptography itself is broken). The moment an attack is detected, the market would likely crash Bitcoin’s price as trust erodes, devaluing any gains. Plus, the community could respond with a hard fork to reverse malicious actions, as seen with Ethereum after the DAO hack in 2016. So, the attacker spends a fortune for a temporary disruption that’s likely unprofitable and reversible—hardly a rational economic move.
Beyond 51% attacks, other “hacks” like breaking Bitcoin’s cryptography (SHA-256 or ECDSA) are even less viable. Quantum computers aren’t there yet—Google’s latest claims in 2025 suggest they’re still decades from cracking ECDSA practically—and the energy and R&D costs to get there outweigh any foreseeable loot from Bitcoin’s $1 trillion-ish market cap.
That said, hacking Bitcoin isn’t the same as hacking Bitcoin users or exchanges. Targeting weak wallets, phishing private keys, or breaching centralized platforms like Coinbase (e.g., the 2021 scams netting millions) is far more practical and happens regularly. These don’t attack Bitcoin’s network but exploit human error or third-party vulnerabilities. They’re economically rational for criminals because the cost (social engineering, malware) is low, and the rewards can be high.
So, hacking Bitcoin’s core system? Irrational and unviable due to insane costs and limited upside. Hacking its ecosystem? Very viable, and that’s where the real action is. Which did you mean?
Q: I’m more more insteresting in Bitcoin’s core system right now. Tell me more about proof of work. Michael Saylor said something about needing more power than the U.S. Navy. Work that into your answer
A: Bitcoin’s proof-of-work (PoW) is the backbone of its security and decentralization, and it’s a fascinating beast when you dig into it—especially with Michael Saylor’s colorful take. At its core, PoW is a consensus mechanism where miners compete to solve complex mathematical puzzles to validate transactions and add blocks to the blockchain. The “work” is computational: hashing a block’s data with a nonce (a random number) through the SHA-256 algorithm until the result meets a specific difficulty target—basically, a number with enough leading zeros. It’s brute-force guessing, and it takes serious horsepower.
Here’s how it works: miners take a block of pending transactions, bundle it with the previous block’s hash and a timestamp, then churn through nonces until one produces a valid hash. The first to succeed broadcasts it, others verify it, and the winner gets the block reward—currently 3.125 BTC (halved in 2024) plus transaction fees. Difficulty adjusts every 2,016 blocks (about two weeks) to keep block times around 10 minutes, so as more miners join, the puzzles get harder. Right now, in March 2025, the network’s hashing power is hovering near 600 exahashes per second (that’s 600 quintillion hashes). To put that in perspective, a top-end consumer GPU like an NVIDIA RTX 4090 does maybe 120 megahashes per second. You’d need billions of those to compete.
Now, Michael Saylor—MicroStrategy’s Bitcoin evangelist—has a knack for vivid analogies. He’s said that Bitcoin’s PoW security is so robust, it’d take more power than the U.S. Navy to bring it down. He’s riffing on the idea of a 51% attack here. The U.S. Navy, with its nuclear carriers and global fleet, has an energy footprint estimated at 10-15 gigawatts when fully mobilized. Bitcoin’s network, meanwhile, consumes about 15-20 gigawatts continuously, based on 2025 estimates from the Cambridge Bitcoin Electricity Consumption Index. That’s raw power draw—think thousands of mining rigs humming in warehouses from Texas to Kazakhstan. To overtake it, an attacker would need to double that, pushing 30-40 gigawatts, and sustain it long enough to reorganize the chain. The Navy might have the juice for its ships, but redirecting that to a coordinated mining operation? Saylor’s point is it’s absurd—Bitcoin’s energy moat is military-grade.
This ties back to economic irrationality. That kind of power isn’t cheap—think $200-300 million per day at industrial electricity rates (say, $0.05/kWh). And for what? A 51% attack might let you double-spend a few million bucks before the network reacts, price tanks, and miners fork you out. Saylor’s Navy comparison underscores the scale: Bitcoin’s PoW isn’t just a technical hurdle; it’s a thermodynamic fortress. The more you zoom in, the clearer it gets—hacking it isn’t just hard, it’s a money pit with no bottom.
-Grok
Leave a Reply