Monero’s Weak Spot Exposed: Expert Says Network Still Vulnerable

The recent claim of a 51% attack on Monero by the mining pool Qubic has raised concerns about the network’s security. Although the claim of a sustained attack was largely debunked, it highlighted a vulnerability that can be exploited using common mining hardware.

Qubic’s 51% Attack Claim on Monero Sparks Security Debate

The recent claim by the mining pool Qubic of a 51% attack on Monero left privacy and blockchain advocates unsettled, raising questions about the security mechanisms that protect blockchain protocols. While the community has largely debunked the claim of a sustained attack, the incident highlighted a long-standing vulnerability in Monero that a determined entity can exploit using general-purpose hardware.

According to Joel Valenzuela, a core member of the Dash decentralized autonomous organization (DAO), an attacker can cheaply cause network disruptions using standard mining hardware. Although the controversy has since subsided, Valenzuela warns that the Monero network remains vulnerable.

“To put it bluntly, as of right now the issue has not been solved, or addressed,” Valenzuela cautioned. “The blockchain reorgs have slowed down or been intermittent, but the ability for reorgs to resume, or intensify, is still very much there.”

Valenzuela agrees with other observers that Qubic could have mined a majority of blocks during certain periods. However, he tells Bitcoin.com News that he is unsure if Qubic was able to sustain this for a prolonged period, which has led some to question the mining pool’s wisdom of going public with an unverified claim.

Motives Behind the Attack and the Dash Alternative

In his written answers, Valenzuela speculates that Qubic went public to draw attention to their relatively new cryptocurrency project. He believes that if this was Qubic’s goal, it “succeeded overwhelmingly.” He suspects financial motives were also at play, noting that Qubic appears to reuse spare computing power to mine other cryptocurrencies like Monero, providing an economic incentive for the attack.

Reacting to reports that Dash had stepped in to help Monero, Valenzuela explained that while both chains were created to address deficiencies in the Bitcoin network, they diverged significantly in 2019. In that year, Dash implemented Chainlocks to leverage staked masternodes to entirely prevent 51% attacks. Monero, on the other hand, implemented Randomx, which not only led to the removal of ASICs but also made mining more accessible. Valenzuela insists that this made Monero less secure and more susceptible to attacks like the one initiated by Qubic.

“Monero integrating a technical solution similar to Dash’s ChainLocks would require a significant technical overhaul, but would prevent an outside actor from attacking the network without also owning a significant number of Monero’s coin supply,” Valenzuela states.

Regulatory Hurdles and the Call for Clarity

Valenzuela also addressed the regulatory landscape, stating that it is a user’s responsibility to ensure that privacy networks are used in a compliant way. However, he lamented the slow pace of regulators in establishing frameworks, which he believes is hindering adoption.

“To put it bluntly, I don’t believe regulator justifications for moving slowly on cryptocurrencies from the consumer protection angle are valid,” he said.

Valenzuela argues that instead of imposing more hurdles, policymakers should decriminalize the use of cryptocurrencies by providing legal clarity. He cited the recently passed Clarity Act in the U.S. as an example of how other jurisdictions should provide a clear legal framework.