{"id":26054,"date":"2025-08-13T15:14:34","date_gmt":"2025-08-13T12:14:34","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/forklog.com\/en\/expert-qubics-attack-on-monero-was-more-pr-than-threat\/"},"modified":"2025-08-13T15:14:34","modified_gmt":"2025-08-13T12:14:34","slug":"expert-qubics-attack-on-monero-was-more-pr-than-threat","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/forklog.com\/en\/expert-qubics-attack-on-monero-was-more-pr-than-threat\/","title":{"rendered":"Expert: Qubic&#8217;s Attack on Monero Was More PR Than Threat"},"content":{"rendered":"<p>The mining pool Qubic <a href=\"https:\/\/forklog.com\/en\/news\/qubic-mining-pool-seizes-control-of-monero\">launched an attack<\/a> on the <a href=\"https:\/\/forklog.com\/en\/news\/monero-zcash-and-dash-how-the-three-privacy-veterans-are-faring\">Monero<\/a> network, which turned out to be more of a PR campaign than a genuine threat. This was stated to ForkLog by Alex Petrov, co-founder and CIO of Hyperfusion.<\/p>\n<p>Qubic significantly increased its visibility and token value, while the Monero network did not suffer any significant losses, the expert noted.<\/p>\n<p>According to him, the main goal of the attack was to draw attention to both projects. Qubic launched a dual mining pool where users could simultaneously mine Monero (XMR) and the native QUBIC token. This allowed for a rapid increase in hash rate and promoted the pool through additional profitability from XMR.<\/p>\n<p>The marketing strategy worked. Within a month, the price of QUBIC rose by 80%, and mentions of the project online increased more than ninefold.<\/p>\n<blockquote class=\"wp-block-quote is-layout-flow wp-block-quote-is-layout-flow\">\n<p><em>\u201cThe effect and headlines created everything necessary: the price rose, interest grew, new users were attracted, and economic turnover increased,\u201d Petrov noted.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n<h2 class=\"wp-block-heading\">Bluff and &#8220;Selfish Mining&#8221;<\/h2>\n<p>Qubic representatives claimed to control more than 50% of Monero&#8217;s hash rate, which theoretically allows for a 51% attack. However, data analysis and community reports showed this was an exaggeration.<\/p>\n<p>In reality, Qubic&#8217;s share in the network was between 30% and 40%. To create the illusion of control, the pool used the tactic of &#8220;selfish mining&#8221;\u2014hiding discovered blocks from the rest of the network to gain an advantage in finding the next block. As a result, external statistical services recorded distorted data, inflating the pool&#8217;s share.<\/p>\n<p>Additionally, Qubic deliberately concealed its real metrics, appearing in statistics as an &#8220;unknown&#8221; pool.<\/p>\n<blockquote class=\"wp-block-quote is-layout-flow wp-block-quote-is-layout-flow\">\n<p><em>\u201cQubic is lying, using manipulative tactics. They are trying to convince miners to switch to their pool using empty threats. As long as we, as a community, do not fall for this trick, Qubic will lose,\u201d reads a popular post on <\/em><a href=\"https:\/\/www.reddit.com\/r\/Monero\/comments\/1mod130\/psa_qubic_is_lying_they_dont_have_50_hash_rate\/\"><em>Reddit<\/em><\/a><em> dedicated to the situation.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n<h2 class=\"wp-block-heading\">Impact on Networks<\/h2>\n<p>The attack had virtually no impact on Monero&#8217;s operations. Transactions proceeded as usual, with no delays or censorship recorded. Users did not lose funds.<\/p>\n<p>The only negative consequence was a temporary 10% drop in XMR&#8217;s price, which was offset by a 2-3 times increase in search interest for the coin.<\/p>\n<p>For the Qubic pool and its miners, the attack proved costly. According to Petrov&#8217;s estimate, they lost 40-60% of their capacity due to &#8220;orphaned&#8221; blocks\u2014work for which no reward was received.<\/p>\n<p>The expert emphasized that conducting a successful and destructive attack on the Monero network is significantly more challenging than it might seem.<\/p>\n<blockquote class=\"wp-block-quote is-layout-flow wp-block-quote-is-layout-flow\">\n<p><em>\u201c51% is a theoretical percentage on paper. To block blocks, at least 75-80% of the hash rate is needed, and for transaction censorship, more than 90%. A double-spending attack is even more complex: besides a huge hash rate, the attacker needs significant funds in XMR and a victim to deceive. This is already beyond the realm of crime and technically dozens of times more difficult,\u201d explained the Hyperfusion co-founder.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n<p>He also added that this situation once again exposed Monero&#8217;s longstanding issue\u2014a high concentration of hash rate in two or three large pools. Redistributing capacity to P2Pool or smaller pools could enhance the network&#8217;s resilience.<\/p>\n<p>Back in July, the platform Qubic, led by IOTA co-founder Sergey Ivancheglo, <a href=\"https:\/\/forklog.com\/en\/news\/qubics-controversial-51-attack-plan-on-monero-sparks-debate\">announced<\/a> plans to capture 51% of Monero&#8217;s hash rate between August 2 and 31.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>The mining pool Qubic launched an attack on the Monero network, which turned out to be more of a PR campaign than a genuine threat. This was stated to ForkLog by Alex Petrov, co-founder and CIO of Hyperfusion. Qubic significantly increased its visibility and token value, while the Monero network did not suffer any significant [&hellip;]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":26053,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"select":"","news_style_id":"","cryptorium_level":"","_short_excerpt_text":"","creation_source":"","_metatest_mainpost_news_update":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[3],"tags":[1395,1137,513,1138],"class_list":["post-26054","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-news-and-analysis","tag-51-percent-attack","tag-cryptocurrency-mining","tag-monero","tag-opinions"],"aioseo_notices":[],"amp_enabled":true,"views":"190","promo_type":"","layout_type":"","short_excerpt":"","is_update":"","_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/forklog.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/26054","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/forklog.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/forklog.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/forklog.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/forklog.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=26054"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/forklog.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/26054\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/forklog.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/26053"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/forklog.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=26054"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/forklog.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=26054"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/forklog.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=26054"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}