51% attack and what threatens crypto investors?

Decentralization is at the heart of most projects in the cryptocurrency market. However, blockchain, like other technologies, exists with some flaws. Among them is the well-known 51% attack.
51% attack is among the largest raider takeovers. The main goal of attackers is to seize control of 51% of the networks capacity and manage it for their own purposes (usually for financial gain).
For greater understanding, you can give an example in the form of a controlling stake in a company. The person who acquires it has the greatest influence and is more responsible for making managerial decisions. In this case, everything happens according to the same principle.

The danger of such a seizure should not be underestimated. Once control over most of the network is in the hands of a person or group, they can perform absolutely any operation without restrictions. The greatest harm is done in this way:
    • censorship or reordering of transactions;
    • double spending of the same token;
    • theft of assets in smart deposit contracts;
    • double spending on payment and management channels;
    • withdrawal of remuneration for the production of the block in full.

 In cases where measures are not taken immediately, fraudsters cause irreparable damage to the network. They manipulate its complexity, help steal, remove smart contracts and transactions. Such an invasion is extremely dangerous and always has unexpected results.

After a 52% attack, all investors abandon the project, and it instantly loses its reputation in the cryptocurrency market, which actually means its destruction. All users are afraid of theft and abuse, the level of capitalization and the cost of tokens are reduced to a minimum.

In order to avoid such situations, you should first take care of reliable network protection. As a rule, computing power is responsible for the level of investment security. The reliability of the project and its tendency to hacker attacks depend on the level of hash rate. However, even investing in such protection does not exclude the possibility of intrusion into the network and its destruction. Ordinary hackers will abandon this venture because it is too expensive and simply unprofitable. Larger actors can take this risk, but in the end they only face costs that will not pay off. It turns out that it will still be possible to get rid of the majority of ill-wishers.