Qubic Says Dogecoin Mining Build Is Underway, Revives 51% Attack Fears

bitcoinistОпубліковано о 2026-01-23Востаннє оновлено о 2026-01-23

Анотація

Qubic has announced the development of a Dogecoin mining integration after a community vote selected DOGE. This move transitions the project from its previous "attention" narrative around Monero into implementation, raising renewed concerns about 51% attacks. Qubic emphasized that integrating ASIC hardware into its useful Proof-of-Work (uPoW) model requires significant engineering and protocol work, but could bring scale by incorporating Dogecoin's large mining economy. The announcement revisits security debates sparked in August 2025 when Qubic claimed a Monero "takeover demonstration" with over 51% hashrate dominance, though subsequent research found its control peaked at 23–34%. Unlike Monero's CPU-based mining, Dogecoin uses Scrypt and has merged mining with Litecoin, making a brute-force 51% attack economically challenging. Research firm 21Shares estimated it would cost billions in hardware and millions daily in electricity. A more plausible risk is Qubic incentivizing existing Scrypt miners to redirect hashpower through its system—a "vampire mining" approach.

Qubic says it is now building a Dogecoin mining integration, a step that moves the project’s post-Monero “attention” narrative into an implementation phase and reopens a familiar set of security questions around majority-hashrate risk.

In an X post shared Thursday, Qubic wrote: “The community didn’t hesitate. The vote was decisive: DOGE won with 301 votes. This isn’t a plug-and-play upgrade. Integrating ASIC hardware into uPoW requires real engineering, deep protocol work, and time to do it right. But the upside is significant. DOGE represents one of the largest and most established mining economies in crypto. Bringing it into Qubic’s useful Proof-of-Work model extends uPoW beyond theory, into scale. [...] Development is underway. This is just the beginning of what is to come.”

Could Dogecoin Suffer A 51% Attack?

The announcement lands with baggage. In August 2025, Qubic ran what it publicly described as a Monero “takeover demonstration,” claiming it had achieved “over 51% hashrate dominance” during parts of the experiment and reporting a brief chain disruption that included a six-block reorganization and orphaned blocks.
That episode became a lightning rod for the broader PoW security debate: how quickly external incentives can concentrate hashpower, and how markets react when “51%” enters the conversation.

Subsequent research challenged the strongest interpretation of those claims. A December 2025 paper reconstructing Qubic-attributed activity on Monero describes the operation as an advertised “selfish mining campaign,” finding Qubic’s hashrate share rising into the 23–34% range in detected intervals, while “sustained 51% control is never observed.”

Dogecoin’s mining economy is structurally unlike Monero’s CPU-oriented RandomX landscape. Dogecoin uses Scrypt and has, since 2014, supported merged mining alongside Litecoin, an architecture that has historically helped bolster its security budget by tapping into a broader Scrypt ASIC miner base.

That hardware reality is central to Qubic’s own messaging. The project said “integrating ASIC hardware into uPoW requires real engineering, deep protocol work, and time to do it right,” explicitly acknowledging that this is not a simple pool launch.

It is also where most of the immediate 51% attack fears run into friction. In an August 2025 research note, published when Qubic first began floating Dogecoin as the “next” network after Monero, 21Shares argued that a brute-force Dogecoin majority would be economically prohibitive, estimating that Qubic would need to match and then exceed roughly 2.78 PH/s, implying about $2.85 billion in hardware plus roughly $2.5 million per day in electricity (before logistics).

The more plausible risk vector, if any, is not Qubic buying its way to majority hashrate, but whether it can engineer incentives and integrations that convince existing Scrypt ASIC operators to route meaningful hashpower through a Qubic-mediated setup, an approach 21Shares characterized as “vampire mining.”

At press time, DOGE traded at $0.12521.

DOGE price, 1-week chart | Source: DOGEUSDT on TradingView.com

Пов'язані питання

QWhat is Qubic currently building and which cryptocurrency does it involve?

AQubic is currently building a Dogecoin mining integration.

QWhat security concern is reignited by Qubic's announcement of Dogecoin mining integration?

AThe announcement reignites fears of a potential 51% attack on the Dogecoin network.

QWhat was the outcome of Qubic's previous 'takeover demonstration' on the Monero network according to subsequent research?

ASubsequent research found that Qubic's hashrate share on Monero reached 23-34% in detected intervals, but sustained 51% control was never observed, challenging the strongest claims of the demonstration.

QWhy does 21Shares argue that a brute-force 51% attack on Dogecoin would be economically prohibitive for Qubic?

A21Shares argued it would be economically prohibitive because Qubic would need to acquire roughly $2.85 billion in hardware and spend about $2.5 million per day on electricity to match the required hashrate.

QWhat is the more plausible risk vector for a Dogecoin 51% attack, as opposed to a brute-force approach?

AThe more plausible risk vector is not a brute-force purchase of hardware, but rather Qubic engineering incentives to convince existing Scrypt ASIC operators to route their hashpower through a Qubic-mediated setup, an approach termed 'vampire mining'.

Пов'язані матеріали

Borrowing Money from a Hundred Years Later, Building Incomprehensible AI

Tech giants like Alphabet, Amazon, Meta, and Microsoft are undergoing a radical financial transformation due to AI. Their traditional "light-asset, high-free-cash-flow" model is being dismantled by staggering capital expenditures on AI infrastructure—data centers, GPUs, and power. Combined 2026 guidance exceeds $700 billion, a 4.5x increase from 2022, causing free cash flow to plummet (e.g., Amazon's fell 95%). To fund this, they are borrowing unprecedented sums through long-dated, multi-currency bonds (e.g., Alphabet's 100-year bond). The world's most conservative capital—pensions, insurers—is now funding Silicon Valley's most speculative bet. This shift makes these companies resemble heavy-asset industrials (railroads, utilities) rather than software firms, threatening their premium valuations. Historically, such infrastructure booms (railroads, fiber optics) followed a pattern: genuine technology, overbuilding fueled by competitive frenzy, aggressive debt financing, and a crash triggered by financial conditions—not technology failure. The infrastructure remained, but many original builders and financiers did not survive. The core gamble is a "time arbitrage": using cheap debt today to build scale and lock in customers before AI capabilities commoditize. They are betting that AI revenue will materialize before debt comes due. Their positions vary: Amazon is under immediate cash pressure; Meta's path to monetization is unclear; Alphabet has a robust core business buffer; Microsoft has the shortest path from infrastructure to revenue. The contract is set: the most risk-averse global capital has lent its time to Silicon Valley, awaiting a future that is promised but uncertain.

marsbit9 хв тому

Borrowing Money from a Hundred Years Later, Building Incomprehensible AI

marsbit9 хв тому

The 'VVV' Concept Soars 9x in Half a Year, The New AI Narrative on Base Chain

"The article explores the 'VVV' concept as the new AI-focused narrative within the Base ecosystem, centered around the token $VVV of the privacy-focused, uncensored generative AI platform Venice, led by crypto veteran Erik Voorhees. Venice has seen significant growth in 2026, with its API users surging, partly attributed to exposure from OpenClaw. The platform now boasts over 2 million total users and 55,000 paid subscribers. Correspondingly, the $VVV token price has risen over 9x this year. Key to its performance are tokenomics designed for value accrual: reduced annual emissions, subscription revenue used for buyback-and-burn, and a unique staking mechanism. Staking $VVV yields $sVVV, which can be used to mint $DIEM tokens. Each staked $DIEM provides a daily $1 credit for using Venice's API services, creating tangible utility. The article also highlights other tokens associated with the 'VVV' narrative. $POD, the token of distributed AI network Dolphin (which co-developed Venice's default AI model), saw a massive price surge. $cyb3rwr3n, a project for a Venice credit auction market, gained attention due to perceived connections to Venice's team despite official denials. Finally, $SR of robotics platform STRIKEROBOT.AI rose after announcing a partnership with Venice for robot vision-language model development. Overall, the 'VVV' ecosystem combines AI platform growth, deflationary tokenomics, and innovative utility mechanisms, driving significant investor interest and price action in related tokens."

marsbit18 хв тому

The 'VVV' Concept Soars 9x in Half a Year, The New AI Narrative on Base Chain

marsbit18 хв тому

Anthropic and OpenAI Have Single-Handedly Severed the Logic of Pre-IPO Stock Tokenization

The pre-IPO stock token market is experiencing significant turmoil following strong statements from AI giants Anthropic and OpenAI. Both companies have updated their official policies, declaring that any transfer of their company shares—including sales, transfers, or assignments of share interests—without prior board approval is "invalid" and will not be recognized in their corporate records. This means buyers in such unauthorized transactions would not be recognized as shareholders and would have no shareholder rights. A major point of contention is the use of Special Purpose Vehicles (SPVs), which are legal entities commonly used by pre-IPO token platforms to pool investor funds and indirectly acquire shares from employees or early investors. The companies explicitly state they do not permit SPVs to acquire their shares, and any such transfer violates their restrictions. They warn that third parties selling shares through SPVs, direct sales, forward contracts, or stock tokens are likely engaged in fraud or are offering worthless investments due to these transfer limits. This stance directly threatens the core model of many pre-IPO token platforms, which rely on SPV structures. The announcement revealed additional risks within this model, such as complex "SPV-within-SPV" layering that obscures legal transparency, increases management fees, and creates a chain reaction risk of invalidation. Following the news, tokens like ANTHROPIC and OPENAI on platforms like PreStocks fell sharply (over 20%). The market reaction highlights a divergence: while asset-backed pre-IPO tokens plummeted, purely speculative pre-IPO futures contracts, which are bilateral bets on future IPO prices with no claim to actual shares, remained relatively stable as they are unaffected by the transfer restrictions. The industry is split on the implications. Some believe the fundamental logic of pre-IPO token trading is broken if leading companies reject SPV-held shares, potentially causing a domino effect. Others, like Rivet founder Nick Abouzeid, argue that buyers of such unofficial tokens always knowingly accepted the risk of non-recognition by the company. The statements serve as a stark risk warning and a corrective measure for a market where valuations for some AI-related pre-IPO tokens had soared to irrational levels, far exceeding recent funding round valuations.

marsbit1 год тому

Anthropic and OpenAI Have Single-Handedly Severed the Logic of Pre-IPO Stock Tokenization

marsbit1 год тому

Anthropic and OpenAI Personally Sever the Logic of Pre-IPO Crypto-Stocks

The pre-IPO token market has been rocked by strong statements from Anthropic and OpenAI. Both AI giants have updated official warnings, declaring that any sale or transfer of their company shares without explicit board approval is "invalid" and will not be recognized on their corporate records. This directly targets Special Purpose Vehicles (SPVs), the common legal structure used by pre-IPO token platforms. These platforms typically use an SPV to acquire shares from employees or early investors, then issue blockchain-based tokens representing a claim on the SPV's economic benefits. Anthropic and OpenAI's position means that if an SPV's share purchase lacked authorization, the underlying asset could be deemed worthless, nullifying the token's value. Anthropic explicitly warned that any third party selling its shares—via direct sales, forwards, or tokens—is likely fraudulent or offering a valueless investment. The crackdown highlights risks in the popular SPV model, including complex multi-layered "Russian doll" SPV structures that obscure legal ownership, add fees, and concentrate risk. If one layer is invalidated, the entire chain could collapse. Following the announcements, tokens like ANTHROPIC and OPENAI on platforms like PreStocks fell sharply (over 20%). In contrast, purely speculative pre-IPO prediction contracts remained stable, as they involve no actual share ownership. The move is seen as a corrective measure amid a market frenzy where some pre-IPO token valuations (e.g., Anthropic's token hitting a $1.4 trillion implied valuation) far exceeded recent official funding rounds. Opinions are split: some believe this undermines the core logic of pre-IPO token trading if top companies reject SPVs, while others argue buyers always assumed this legal risk when accessing unofficial channels. The statements serve as a stark warning and a potential catalyst for market de-leveraging and clearer boundaries.

Odaily星球日报1 год тому

Anthropic and OpenAI Personally Sever the Logic of Pre-IPO Crypto-Stocks

Odaily星球日报1 год тому

The Waged Worker Driven to Poverty by AI Subscriptions

"AI Membership: The Hidden Cost Pushing Workers Toward 'Poverty'" The widespread corporate push for AI adoption is creating a hidden financial burden for employees. Companies, from giants like Alibaba to small firms, are mandating AI use, often tying token consumption to KPIs, but frequently refuse to cover the costs. Workers are forced to pay for subscriptions out of pocket to stay competitive and avoid being replaced. Front-end developer Long Shen spends up to 2000 RMB monthly on tools like Cursor and ChatGPT Plus, seeing it as a necessary 3% salary investment to handle 90% of his coding tasks. While it boosted his performance and led to promotions, he now faces idle time at work, pretending to be busy. Designer Peng Peng navigates strict company firewalls by using personal devices and accounts for AI image generation tools like Midjourney, spending hundreds monthly without reimbursement, while her boss demands faster, more numerous revisions. The pressure creates workplace anxiety and suspicion. Programmer Li Huahua, after a friend's experience of raised KPIs following AI success, fears being branded a "traitor" for using it yet worries about falling behind if she doesn't. The dynamic allows management to demand results without understanding the tools or covering expenses, treating employees like AI "agents." While some, like entrepreneur Jin Tu, find high value in paid AI, building entire systems and winning competitions, for most, it's a trap. Free tools like Kimi and Doubao are introducing fees, closing off alternatives. The initial efficiency gains individual advantage, but as AI becomes ubiquitous, the personal edge disappears, workloads increase, and a cycle of dependency begins. Workers like Long Shen realize they cannot maintain AI-generated code without AI, making stopping harder than continuing to pay. The tool promising liberation is instead becoming a compulsory, costly chain in the modern workplace.

marsbit2 год тому

The Waged Worker Driven to Poverty by AI Subscriptions

marsbit2 год тому

Торгівля

Спот
Ф'ючерси
活动图片