Bitcoin Gold developers stated that they stopped an extremely long block reorganization attack.
Vitalik Buterin in response tweeted: “51% attack on BTG defeated by a user-activated soft fork providing a check point and hence explicitly banning the attack chain. Excellent news. In PoS, in such cases the attacker would lose many millions of dollars to slashings/inactivity leak.”
In response to the Buterin reply Jakup a community member opined, Fine, if you can distinguish between “good chain” and “evil chain”. But that’s generally not the case. You don’t want to have “supervisors” telling you which chain you should follow.
However, Vitalik Buterin took to reply stating that in 51% attacks it is possible to absolutely distinguish about which is the good chain and which is the evil chain
While Buterin was looking at the positive aspect of how the attack was prevented, community members looked in to how the fork was executed in a small time frame, which means that the process appears centralized and how very few people are running the nodes.
Bitcoin Gold (BTG) fork is not Good News!
Many people do not feel it is good news and feel that BTG escaped not because of the security and robustness of the network but because of the vigilance of the developers. They feel it is a red sign.
Yet another community member alerted on how the tokens and stacks can be rented and used to manipulate the network. This in turn would be just a fraction cost for a PoW attack. Further stated that the PoS also has its own vulnerabilities.
The developers who find a threat have to hardfork. This just means that the developers act like the third party when it comes to reallocating assets. In this case, fears are mounting as to whether the stakers are playing the attackers. Obviously this might not prove true if there has been a real attack by an external attacker.
In his view, Sydney Ifergan, the crypto expert tweeted: “Vitalik Buterin gave a theory on why PoW attack costs should be lower than PoS attack costs in response to the BTG event. Scary if stakers evolve to be attackers.”
The purpose of immutability is put to test. While the fork prevented an attack, the control seems to stay in just a few hands. Anyone being able to fork their coin away cannot be called network strength.
In PoS, the attackers are large stake holders who are able to control the network by exerting their influence.