출처: Block Media
Duke Professor Analyzes Cost and Feasibility of a $6 Billion 51% Attack on Bitcoin
A recent study conducted by Campbell Harvey, a professor at Duke University’s Fuqua School of Business, brings attention to the potential vulnerabilities in Bitcoin’s blockchain system. While Professor Harvey asserts that a 51% attack on the Bitcoin (BTC) network would involve astronomical costs—approximately $6 billion—he highlights that it remains a plausible risk. The findings, reported on August 14 by CryptoNews, provide a comprehensive cost analysis and explore the implications of such an attack.
The research situates Bitcoin within the broader context of financial systems, likening it to gold yet underlining its unique risks. These include emerging threats such as quantum computing and 51% attacks, which could challenge the network’s foundational security. Despite these vulnerabilities, Harvey emphasizes the strengths of Bitcoin, particularly its capped supply of 21 million coins, contrasting it with gold, where technological advancements could theoretically increase its availability.
Decoding the 51% Attack: How It Works and Why It Matters
To understand the gravity of Professor Harvey’s analysis, it’s essential to contextualize the 51% attack threat. At its core, Bitcoin relies on decentralized mining, where computational power—measured as hash rates—validates transactions and ensures the integrity of the blockchain. This "voting" mechanism allows a distributed network of nodes to collectively confirm accurate data, thus safeguarding trust in the system.
However, a critical vulnerability lies in what happens when any entity gains control of over 50% of the network’s total hash rate. Such domination would grant the attacker the ability to rewrite transaction data, enabling the redirection of mined Bitcoin to their own accounts. The repercussions include double spending and undermining the integrity of the system, which is pivotal to Bitcoin’s value proposition.
Bitcoin’s architecture and subsequent advancements have mitigated risks over the years. In its infancy, mining was feasible using ordinary computing equipment, but the escalating difficulty of mining rendered basic setups obsolete. The advent of Application-Specific Integrated Circuit (ASIC) miners in 2013 pivoted the industry to one requiring immense computational power and high financial investment. By October 2025, Bitcoin’s mining difficulty reached unprecedented levels, reflecting these technological strides. As a result, a 51% attack has become not just technically demanding but prohibitively expensive.
The $6 Billion Price Tag: Insights from Harvey’s Research
Campbell Harvey’s in-depth report calculates that staging a 51% attack on the Bitcoin network for one week would require investments totaling approximately $6 billion. To arrive at this figure, his analysis breaks down the associated costs:
- Hardware Acquisition: The majority of the expense, approximately $4.6 billion, would go toward purchasing ASIC mining equipment capable of providing sufficient hash rates to dominate the blockchain.
- Infrastructure Setup: Constructing data centers housing these mining machines would require an additional $1.34 billion.
- Operational Costs: Weekly operational expenses, particularly electricity consumption, are estimated at $130 million.
This cost—$6 billion—equates to roughly 0.26% of Bitcoin’s total market value, which currently stands at $12 trillion. Beyond this analysis, Harvey also provides data on Bitcoin’s broader network economics, including an annual production volume of 164,363 BTC and an annual energy consumption of 166.4 TWh. His study also notes that energy costs across the network amount to $8.4 trillion annually, resulting in an average production cost of $73,000 per BTC.
The Fallout of a Successful Attack
The implications of a successful 51% attack extend far beyond the Bitcoin network. Harvey warns that such an attack could catalyze a rapid loss of confidence in the cryptocurrency, leading to a dramatic price collapse. The attackers could also multiply their profits by engaging in futures trading, where daily Bitcoin derivatives markets record transactions exceeding $60 billion.
Historical precedents highlight that these concerns are not purely hypothetical. Similar attacks have targeted smaller blockchains, including Bitcoin Gold and Ethereum Classic in the years following 2017. These breaches resulted in significant cryptocurrency theft, showcasing the vulnerabilities of blockchain systems to major hash rate manipulations. In August 2025, Monero faced its own scare when the Qubic mining pool briefly controlled over 50% of its hash rate—a stark reminder of how such scenarios can unfold.
Counterarguments and Industry Response
While Professor Harvey’s calculations provide a sobering perspective on Bitcoin’s vulnerabilities, his conclusions have not gone unchallenged. Critics argue that amassing the requisite resources for a 51% attack would take years, making it a highly visible and impractical endeavor. Building and deploying mining infrastructure on such a scale would likely draw regulatory scrutiny and provoke decentralized countermeasures from the mining community.
Moreover, some experts have pointed out that the financial feasibility of a large-scale attack is questionable. In the event of significant Bitcoin sell-offs during an attack, such actions may be classified as market manipulation, creating legal risks for perpetrators. Additionally, major exchanges could freeze or investigate trades suspected of being tied to malicious activities.
Matt Prusak, CEO of the U.S. Bitcoin Corporation, dismissed the likelihood of such an attack disrupting Bitcoin’s ecosystem. In an interview with Bloomberg, Prusak stated, “The economic feasibility undermines the 51% attack theory. I live in the real world, and I’m not worried.”
Ensuring Bitcoin’s Resilience
While a 51% attack could potentially deal a severe reputational and operational blow to Bitcoin, the cryptocurrency’s resilience lies in its dynamic ecosystem. Rising mining difficulty, decentralized governance, and the immense financial power required to challenge the network collectively bolster its security.
Even as researchers like Campbell Harvey uncover vulnerabilities that drive forward conversations about risk, they also reinforce the need for ongoing innovation to preserve Bitcoin’s integrity against evolving threats. For now, Bitcoin’s design continues to position it as one of the most robust and trusted blockchain systems in the cryptocurrency landscape.
