If Monero Can Suffer 50% Hashrate Risk, Why Can't Bitcoin?

If Monero Can Suffer 50% Hashrate Risk, Why Can't Bitcoin? (And Can LoyceV Save Us?)

Kraken just paused Monero (XMR) deposits after a single mining pool crossed 50% of the network's hashrate (source). This isn't just a "theoretical" 51% attack risk - it's actually happening to a top-tier privacy coin.

So let's ask the uncomfortable question: Could Bitcoin face the same? And if so, would exchanges freeze BTC deposits, grinding everything to a halt?

Quote from: The Situation

• Mining centralization is real. Foundry + Antpool already control ~50% of Bitcoin's hashrate. It's just expensive to attack - not impossible.
• Exchanges act first, ask later. Kraken didn't wait for an attack - they froze XMR at the first whiff of risk. Imagine this applied to BTC: chaos.
• The "LoyceV Factor." Maybe the hero we need isn't a miner, but a guy fighting for 0.1 sat/vbyte transactions (thread). If we're all forced to use ultra-low fees during a hashrate crisis, at least Loyce's Electrum server will keep the mempool moving.

Debate Time

• "But Bitcoin has more hashpower!" Sure - but cost ≠ impossibility. A well-funded adversary (cough nation-state cough) could try.
• Would Proof-of-Stake fix this? Or just replace mining barons with staking cartels?
• Should exchanges decide network integrity? Kraken just set a precedent.

☆ Bottom line: XMR's crisis is a stress test for every PoW coin. And if Bitcoin faces a similar scenario, we'll need more than just hopium - we'll need decentralized fallbacks (and maybe LoyceV's low-fee infra). ☆

P.S. LoyceV - if you're reading this, please prioritize your Electrum server over sleep. Bitcoin might need it sooner than we think.