“Bitcoin’s security model is broken,” says Justin Drake, eth developer

The Ethereum developer, Justin Drake, has lit a debate in the community by ensuring that Bitcoin’s security model, based on his work test mechanism (POW), is unsustainable long -term. “Bitcoin Pow’s security is a time bomb,” says Drake.

In a recent analysis published in the social network X, Justin argues that The decrease in transaction rates and dependence on a fixed limit of 21 million bitcoins They could compromise the safety of the network, leaving Bitcoin vulnerable to attacks and putting not only this cryptoactive at risk, but also to the entire ecosystem that is supported by its existence.

Drake bases his argument with data that reflect, according to him, a worrying trend in the finances of Bitcoin miners. According to their analysis, transaction rates, which represent a crucial part of the network security budget, have fallen to historical minimums. A “security budget” from block rewards and transaction rates would determine the amount of hash infrastructure that miners can sustain. If the rewards are not high enough, the miners cannot continue to operate and optimally ensuring the network.

The Ethereum developer shares a graph that indicates that the 30 -day mobile average transactions volume is just 6.5 BTC per day, a level not seen in the last 13 years.

This, combined with the reductions scheduled in block rewards – such as those that occurred in the Halvings of 2016, 2020 and 2024—, has led to that the rates contribute only 1% of the total income of the minersa figure that has been stagnant for almost a decade. To illustrate the seriousness of the problem received by Drake, this raises a hypothetical scenario: if the rates were the only source of income for miners today, income would be reduced 100 times, which would imply an equivalent decrease in hash infrastructure, leaving Bitcoin exposed to a 51% attack “by a single mining farm.”

The developer also presents calculations for a future in which Bitcoin reaches a significantly higher value. If the price of Bitcoin reached $ 1 million per unit, keeping the current rates of 6.5 BTC per day, this would generate 6.5 million dollars daily in tariff revenues. However, This would represent only 10% of the current security budgetwhich would reduce the HASH power of 20 gigawatts (GW) – obvious to the consumption of 10 million electric heaters – just 2 GW.

In an even more optimistic scenario, with Bitcoin at 10 million dollars per unit and a market capitalization of 200 billion dollars, Drake estimates that a 51% attack would cost 20 billion dollars, just 0.01% of said market value, An amount that considers easily attainable for malicious actors.

“Bitcoin would be an asset of 200 billion dollars insured by the same 20 GW infrastructure we have today. A permanent attack of 51% would cost only 0.01% of its market capitalization.”

Justin Drake, well -known Ethereum developer.

Drake argues that the proposed solutions, such as increasing transaction rates exponentially or implementing technologies such as Bitvm, have not proven effective to generate a sustained volume of rates. Projects such as Lightning Network, Stacks or Ordinals They have only achieved temporary peaks in rates, but not a structural solution.

Among the alternatives mentioned are the introduction of a tail issue (Tail Issuance), which would mean the limit of 21 million coins from the BTC supply; Or the transition to a participation test model (POS), such as the one that Ethereum uses, although it recognizes that both options face cultural resistance within the Bitcoin community.

Can commissions multiply by one hundred by magic? Maybe. But so far, no attempt to generate transactional utility in Bitcoin has managed to generate a sustained volume of commissions. Counterparty, Rootstock, Liquid, Lightning, Omni, Stacks, Ordinals, Babylon, etc., only produced short commissions. Is Bitvm a solution? Bridges that depend on it can be affected by 51%attacks. One step forward, two behind. OP_CAT agreements? Maybe, but it is very speculative. I witnessed a verified Stark in an op_cat test network: a multiblock monstrosity.

Justin Drake, well -known Ethereum developer.

The tail emission (or Tail Sessionin English) mentioned by Drake is a mechanism used by certain cryptocurrencies, such as Monero, To continue issuing new coins or tokens gradually and perpetually After the initial or main issuance of its supply has been reached.

Meanwhile, he warns that ignoring this problem could have systemic consequences for the entire ecosystem, since a collapse in Bitcoin’s security could drag with other associated networks and projects. «Bitcoin is supposed to be antifragile. However, the problem is not being addressed. We can hide the head in the sand. But the foundations are made listening more strongly. ICT, CT, next block, bum!