How Does the Cost of Acquiring the Necessary Hash Power Relate to the Potential Profit from a Double-Spend?

The attacker must ensure the potential profit from the double-spend significantly exceeds the cost of acquiring and operating the necessary 51% hash power. The cost includes renting mining equipment, electricity, and any lost opportunity cost.

If the cost of the attack is higher than the value of the double-spent coins, the attack is economically irrational. This economic barrier is the primary defense for high-hash-rate coins.

Low-hash-rate coins have a much lower barrier, making the profit potential higher.

What Are the Economic Incentives for an Attacker to Perform a Double-Spend?
What Are the Economic Incentives That Discourage Miners/validators from Launching a 51% Attack?
Can a Barrier Option Also Incorporate an Average Price Feature?
What Is the Concept of “Nakamoto Consensus”?
How Does Network Congestion Affect Confirmation Time and Double-Spend Risk?
How Does the Total Value Staked in an Oracle Network Relate to Its Overall Security Cost?
What Is a “Barrier Option” and How Might TWAP Be Incorporated into Its Payout Structure?
What Role Does Transaction Confirmation Depth Play in Mitigating the Risk of a Double-Spend?

Glossar