“Bitcoin … is cooked”. Justin Drake's provocative declaration, a researcher linked to Ethereum, ignited the networks. According to him, an investment of $ 10 billion would be enough to destroy the Bitcoin network. However, behind this assertion hides a disturbing ignorance of what makes the resilience of the protocol. Far from being a weak point, the ceiling of 21 million units and the energy safety of Bitcoin make it a colossus with clay feet … apparently only. If Bitcoin failed, no crypto would survive. Explanations.
The $ 10 billion: a theoretical disaster scenario
Justin Drake argues that an attack at 51 % – where an actor controls more than half of the network's calculation power – would cost “only” $ 10 billion.
Theoretically, it is possible. In fact, it is to ignore the reality of mining infrastructure. To mobilize 10 gigawatts of electricity (the equivalent of the annual consumption of countries like Jordan), it would take months, even years of coordination between states. An operation almost impossible to hide, and economically absurd: why destroy a network whose value is based on confidence?
Critics forget a crucial detail: Bitcoin transforms energy into safety. ASIC (mining materials) only serve to protect the network. In the event of an attempted attack, their value would collapse, making the initial laborer investment.
In addition, as James Check (Bitcoin analyst) points out, minors in difficulty sell their equipment at low prices, allowing new players to maintain decentralization. A natural self -regulation, absent on Ethereum.
Finally, the energy costs argument neglects technological advances. Minors already use strained gas, excess hydroelectricity, or manage unstable electrical networks (eg in Texas). Tomorrow, nuclear or green hydrogen will further reduce their footprint. Bitcoin does not passively consume: it optimizes. Flexibility that proof-of-stake blockchains (like Ethereum) cannot imitate.
Bitcoin vs Eth: War of economic models
Drake Reproach Bitcoin its annual issue (0.83 % currently), deemed too high vs Ethereum. Fallaious reasoning. The programmed rarity of Bitcoin – 21 million, end point – in fact a deflationary active in design.
Conversely, Ethereum alternates inflationist and deflationists according to updates. Its monetary model looks like a permanent experience, far from the predictability of Bitcoin.
Detractors point to Bitcoin's dependence on block awards (99 % of minors' income). But it is to forget that these awards can decrease by half every 4 years (Halving), forcing a transition to the transaction costs.
A slow, but wanted process. As gold requires safes, securing bitcoin will have a cost … that users will pay, because the stored value justifies it. Ethereum, burning costs according to moving rules, creates systemic instability.
Ethereum wants to be “ultra-sone”, a mixture of low emission and aggressive combustion. But this perpetual quest for fine settings makes him vulnerable to the whims of developers.
Bitcoin is focusing on immutability: its code changes slowly, because each modification threatens its status as “healthy money”. Result: Bitcoin is the only crypto that has survived each major crisis (MTGOX, state bans, bear markets). Ultimate proof of its robustness.
Bitcoin attacks say a lot about its reference status. If Drake and Sassano see an “obvious disaster”, it is perhaps because Ethereum, despite his innovations, remains an outsider in the face of the cultural and technological anchoring of Bitcoin. A truth is essential: without Bitcoin, the cryptos would never have existed. And if he had to fall, it would be the collapse of the whole crypto sphere. But to see its 15 years of resistance to apocalyptic predictions, Bitcoin has already won its bet: to be the currency of centuries, not hype cycles.
Maximize your Cointribne experience with our 'Read to Earn' program! For each article you read, earn points and access exclusive rewards. Sign up now and start accumulating advantages.
