Even though this kind of hacking is possible, it's extremely difficult.
FM
A 51% attack means an attack on a blockchain by miners who would take control of more than 50% of the network's mining hash rate, or computing power.
These attackers would then be able to stop new transactions from being confirmed, giving them the ability to stop Payments between some or all of the Blockchain's users. They would also have the ability to reverse transactions that have been completed while they had control over the network, which would mean they could 'double-spend' coins (steal the coins back mid-transaction and use them again for another transaction.)
A 51% attack would almost certainly not grant its perpetrators the ability to create new coins or make changes to old blocks, so a 51% attack would most likely not bring an end to bitcoin or other blockchain-based currencies on its own even if it can be extremely damaging.
Additionally, hitting 51% network control is does not actually guarantee a successful network takeover. This is simply the point where success is more probable. In reality, one could attempt this kind of attack with far less network control, but the chances of successfully pulling this off would be far slimmer.
The greater the number of past blockchain transactions, the more secure a particular blockchain would be against these types of attacks. In a realistic situation, an attacker would only be able to alter transactions within the previous few blocks. They would also not have the ability to create new coins out of thin air - except those received as block mining rewards as normally.
FM
Examples of 51% Attacks
There have been several examples of 51% attacks over the last few years, here are some of the more notable ones:
Ghash.io
The mining pool of Ghash.io exceeded 50% of the Bitcoin computing power for a short period in July 2014, leading the pool to voluntarily look to reduce its share of the network. In a statement they claimed that it would not reach 40% of the total mining power in the future.
Krypton and Shift
Krypton and Shift, blockchains which work on Ethereum, were victims of 51% attacks in August 2016.
Verge
Verge, a ”privacy coin” known for the zealous nature of its community, fell prey to a 51% attack when a malevolent miner was able to gain a majority control of the network's hash rate, which made it possible to control and alter transactions. About 250,000 verge were seized by the attacker, forcing the project team to prepare a hard fork.
Potential Solutions
The development of a more decentralized network with a greater number of individual miners would be able to provide a strong base for defense against the chance of a 51% attack. The larger mining groups are able to make use of specialist ASIC mining rigs and ASIC-resistant algorithms. Coins that would allow CPU mining are also realistic defense mechanisms against 51% attacks.
The Proof of Stake consensus mechanism is also less susceptible to this kind of attack. This is because purchasing of more than 50% of all the coins available on a network is normally far more expensive than trying to take control of 51% of the hashing power.
Furthermore, any individual with a large stake in any network would be risking their own holdings by launching an attack on the network to make it malfunction critically.
How Realistic Is It?
It is an interesting concept because, in theory, this attack is possible; the blockchain network is free and open, so if an individual were to have enough computational power (which would be very costly on its own), there would be no bitcoin authority to stop the individual from gaining control. In the unlikely scenario that such an attack occurs with success, it is probable that confidence in the currency would become non-existent and its value as a legitimate currency would rapidly plummet.
A 51% attack is certainly possible – especially given the rise of mining pools (groups of individuals who mine together as a single unit). However, the actual damage that can be caused is minor – though enough that it would create a panic that would seriously impact bitcoin’s potential function as a currency. At the current network mining difficulty levels, not even major governments could mount a 51% attack without serious difficulty.
A 51% attack means an attack on a blockchain by miners who would take control of more than 50% of the network's mining hash rate, or computing power.
These attackers would then be able to stop new transactions from being confirmed, giving them the ability to stop Payments between some or all of the Blockchain's users. They would also have the ability to reverse transactions that have been completed while they had control over the network, which would mean they could 'double-spend' coins (steal the coins back mid-transaction and use them again for another transaction.)
A 51% attack would almost certainly not grant its perpetrators the ability to create new coins or make changes to old blocks, so a 51% attack would most likely not bring an end to bitcoin or other blockchain-based currencies on its own even if it can be extremely damaging.
Additionally, hitting 51% network control is does not actually guarantee a successful network takeover. This is simply the point where success is more probable. In reality, one could attempt this kind of attack with far less network control, but the chances of successfully pulling this off would be far slimmer.
The greater the number of past blockchain transactions, the more secure a particular blockchain would be against these types of attacks. In a realistic situation, an attacker would only be able to alter transactions within the previous few blocks. They would also not have the ability to create new coins out of thin air - except those received as block mining rewards as normally.
FM
Examples of 51% Attacks
There have been several examples of 51% attacks over the last few years, here are some of the more notable ones:
Ghash.io
The mining pool of Ghash.io exceeded 50% of the Bitcoin computing power for a short period in July 2014, leading the pool to voluntarily look to reduce its share of the network. In a statement they claimed that it would not reach 40% of the total mining power in the future.
Krypton and Shift
Krypton and Shift, blockchains which work on Ethereum, were victims of 51% attacks in August 2016.
Verge
Verge, a ”privacy coin” known for the zealous nature of its community, fell prey to a 51% attack when a malevolent miner was able to gain a majority control of the network's hash rate, which made it possible to control and alter transactions. About 250,000 verge were seized by the attacker, forcing the project team to prepare a hard fork.
Potential Solutions
The development of a more decentralized network with a greater number of individual miners would be able to provide a strong base for defense against the chance of a 51% attack. The larger mining groups are able to make use of specialist ASIC mining rigs and ASIC-resistant algorithms. Coins that would allow CPU mining are also realistic defense mechanisms against 51% attacks.
The Proof of Stake consensus mechanism is also less susceptible to this kind of attack. This is because purchasing of more than 50% of all the coins available on a network is normally far more expensive than trying to take control of 51% of the hashing power.
Furthermore, any individual with a large stake in any network would be risking their own holdings by launching an attack on the network to make it malfunction critically.
How Realistic Is It?
It is an interesting concept because, in theory, this attack is possible; the blockchain network is free and open, so if an individual were to have enough computational power (which would be very costly on its own), there would be no bitcoin authority to stop the individual from gaining control. In the unlikely scenario that such an attack occurs with success, it is probable that confidence in the currency would become non-existent and its value as a legitimate currency would rapidly plummet.
A 51% attack is certainly possible – especially given the rise of mining pools (groups of individuals who mine together as a single unit). However, the actual damage that can be caused is minor – though enough that it would create a panic that would seriously impact bitcoin’s potential function as a currency. At the current network mining difficulty levels, not even major governments could mount a 51% attack without serious difficulty.
Crypto Industry in 2025: Five Defining Trends – And One Prediction for 2026
Executive Interview | Charlotte Bullock | Chief Product Officer, Bank of London | FMLS:25
Executive Interview | Charlotte Bullock | Chief Product Officer, Bank of London | FMLS:25
In this interview, we sat down with Charlotte Bullock, Head of Product at The Bank of London, previously at SAP and now shaping product at one of the sector’s most ambitious new banking players.
Charlotte reflects on the Summit so far and talks about the culture inside fintech banks today. We look at the pressures that come with scaling, and how firms can hold onto the nimble approach that made them stand out early on.
We also cover the state of payments ahead of her appearance on the payments roundtable: the blockages financial firms face, the areas that still need fixing, and what a realistic solution looks like in 2026.
In this interview, we sat down with Charlotte Bullock, Head of Product at The Bank of London, previously at SAP and now shaping product at one of the sector’s most ambitious new banking players.
Charlotte reflects on the Summit so far and talks about the culture inside fintech banks today. We look at the pressures that come with scaling, and how firms can hold onto the nimble approach that made them stand out early on.
We also cover the state of payments ahead of her appearance on the payments roundtable: the blockages financial firms face, the areas that still need fixing, and what a realistic solution looks like in 2026.
In this conversation, we sit down with Drew Niv, CSO at ATFX Connect and one of the most influential figures in modern FX.
We speak about market structure, the institutional view on liquidity, and the sharp rise of prop trading, a sector Drew has been commenting on in recent months. Drew explains why he once dismissed prop trading, why his view changed, and what he now thinks the model means for brokers, clients and risk managers.
We explore subscription-fee dependency, the high reneging rate, and the long-term challenge: how brokers can build a more stable and honest version of the model. Drew also talks about the traffic advantage standalone prop firms have built and why brokers may still win in the long run if they take the right approach.
In this conversation, we sit down with Drew Niv, CSO at ATFX Connect and one of the most influential figures in modern FX.
We speak about market structure, the institutional view on liquidity, and the sharp rise of prop trading, a sector Drew has been commenting on in recent months. Drew explains why he once dismissed prop trading, why his view changed, and what he now thinks the model means for brokers, clients and risk managers.
We explore subscription-fee dependency, the high reneging rate, and the long-term challenge: how brokers can build a more stable and honest version of the model. Drew also talks about the traffic advantage standalone prop firms have built and why brokers may still win in the long run if they take the right approach.
Executive Interview | Remonda Z. Kirketerp Møller| CEO & Founder Muinmos | FMLS:25
Executive Interview | Remonda Z. Kirketerp Møller| CEO & Founder Muinmos | FMLS:25
In this interview, Remonda Z. Kirketerp Møller, founder of Muinmos, breaks down the state of AI in regtech and what responsible adoption really looks like for brokers. We talk about rising fragmentation, the pressures around compliance accuracy, and why most firms are still in the early stages of AI maturity.
Ramanda also shares insights on regulator sandboxes, shifting expectations around accountability, and the current reality of MiCA licensing and passporting in Europe.
A concise look at where compliance, onboarding, and AI-driven processes are heading next.
In this interview, Remonda Z. Kirketerp Møller, founder of Muinmos, breaks down the state of AI in regtech and what responsible adoption really looks like for brokers. We talk about rising fragmentation, the pressures around compliance accuracy, and why most firms are still in the early stages of AI maturity.
Ramanda also shares insights on regulator sandboxes, shifting expectations around accountability, and the current reality of MiCA licensing and passporting in Europe.
A concise look at where compliance, onboarding, and AI-driven processes are heading next.
In this conversation, we speak with Aydin Bonabi, CEO and co-founder of Surveill, a firm focused on fraud detection and AI-driven compliance tools for financial institutions.
We start with Aydin’s view of the Summit and the challenges brokers face as fraud tactics grow more complex. He explains how firms can stay ahead through real-time signals, data patterns, and early-stage detection.
We also talk about AI training and why compliance teams often struggle to keep models accurate, fair, and aligned with regulatory expectations. Aydin breaks down what “good” AI training looks like inside a financial environment, including the importance of clean data, domain expertise, and human oversight.
He closes with a clear message: fraud is scaling, and so must the tools that stop it.
In this conversation, we speak with Aydin Bonabi, CEO and co-founder of Surveill, a firm focused on fraud detection and AI-driven compliance tools for financial institutions.
We start with Aydin’s view of the Summit and the challenges brokers face as fraud tactics grow more complex. He explains how firms can stay ahead through real-time signals, data patterns, and early-stage detection.
We also talk about AI training and why compliance teams often struggle to keep models accurate, fair, and aligned with regulatory expectations. Aydin breaks down what “good” AI training looks like inside a financial environment, including the importance of clean data, domain expertise, and human oversight.
He closes with a clear message: fraud is scaling, and so must the tools that stop it.
Exness expands its presence in Africa: Inside our interview with Paul Margarites in Cape Town
Exness expands its presence in Africa: Inside our interview with Paul Margarites in Cape Town
Finance Magnates met with Paul Margarites, Exness regional commercial director for Sub-Saharan Africa, during a visit to the firm’s office opening in Cape Town. In this talk, led by Andrea Badiola Mateos, Co-CEO at Finance Magnates, Paul shares views on the South African trading space, local user behavior, mobile trends, regulation, team growth, and how Exness plans to grow in more markets across the region. @Exness
Read the article at: https://www.financemagnates.com/thought-leadership/exness-expands-its-presence-in-africa-inside-our-interview-with-paul-margarites/
#exness #financemagnates #exnesstrading #CFDtrading #tradeonline #africanews #capetown
Finance Magnates met with Paul Margarites, Exness regional commercial director for Sub-Saharan Africa, during a visit to the firm’s office opening in Cape Town. In this talk, led by Andrea Badiola Mateos, Co-CEO at Finance Magnates, Paul shares views on the South African trading space, local user behavior, mobile trends, regulation, team growth, and how Exness plans to grow in more markets across the region. @Exness
Read the article at: https://www.financemagnates.com/thought-leadership/exness-expands-its-presence-in-africa-inside-our-interview-with-paul-margarites/
#exness #financemagnates #exnesstrading #CFDtrading #tradeonline #africanews #capetown