Coindesk's Monero Coverage Sparks Community Rage | New Insights on Alleged Attack
Recent claims by Coindesk alleging a 51% attack on the Monero network have stirred significant ire among the crypto community. Critics are asserting these claims are poorly researched and misleading, prompting fears of the impact on journalism standards in the crypto sphere.
What’s the Latest?
Comments in forums reveal troubling developments regarding Monero's security. Users discussed Qubic, a mining pool reportedly controlling 31% to 41% of Monero's hashrate. This pool has triggered concerns, as it is seen as pushing limits toward a potential attack. One poster pointed out that Qubic even caused a seven-block reorganization on the Monero blockchain, leading to some exchanges temporarily pausing withdrawals due to disruptions, with members expressing it was mainly misinformation stemming from Qubic.
Key Issues Emerge
Ongoing Attack Concerns: Some users indicated legitimate worries about a 52% attack, highlighting Qubic as a potential threat with reports showing 46 of 100 blocks at risk.
Media Criticism: Many have voiced that Coindesk's article adds to the confusion, asserting, "They spread fear, uncertainty, and doubt (FUD)," reflecting on inadequate journalism standards.3
Community Accountability: Users are pushing for transparency and accuracy, with one even declaring, "It’s naive to think this was just a poorly researched article."
Sentiment in the Community
The general mood appears decidedly pessimistic regarding Coindesk's reporting. People feel there’s a critical need to address inaccuracies and push for higher journalistic integrity in crypto coverage.
Key Points to Note
⚡ Qubic’s control: Attaining up to 41% of Monero's hashrate raises alarms.
🔄 Withdrawal pauses: Exchanges halted withdrawals due to disruptions from Qubic's activity.
📰 Media Responsibility: "Absolutely still relevant to tell them to correct the article" - a user’s rallying cry.
The uproar over Coindesk's claims calls into question the reliability of crypto journalism. With incidents like this, can trust in media coverage be restored, or are we left navigating an increasingly murky information landscape?