A significant event recently shook the Monero blockchain community when, on August 12, 2025, it experienced a notable 6-block reorganization. Shortly after, this was followed by several instances of 9-block reorgs over the ensuing days. While these occurrences may seem minor in the broader scope of blockchain activity—equating to a mere 12 to 18 minutes of history rewriting—this level of reconstruction is exceedingly rare under non-malicious circumstances.
The probabilistic nature of block reorganizations indicates that, statistically, such significant reorgs are highly unlikely to happen without malintent, particularly as the number of blocks involved increases. The initial 6-block reorg appears to have originated from a collective identified as Qubic, which operates as a de facto mining pool for Monero. Qubic has acknowledged their involvement in the incident, leading to widespread media coverage framing the event as a potential 51% attack. However, a deeper analysis has yet to yield definitive evidence supporting this claim.
Instead, experts suggest the reorgs likely exemplified a “selfish mining” strategy—a known technique aimed at maximizing returns for miners controlling around one-third of the total hashrate on proof-of-work blockchains. This phenomenon can also affect proof-of-stake networks, albeit at varying levels of risk due to their structural complexities.
While discussions surrounding these events frequently pivot toward selfish mining tactics or examining Qubic’s unique incentive structure, which temporarily bolstered profitability for Monero miners, the more pressing takeaway lies elsewhere. The incident serves as a critical reminder that tail emission—a process involving infinite inflation intended to incentivize ongoing block creation—does not effectively secure long-term blockchain security.
Understanding the nuances of key terms is essential for a meaningful conversation on blockchain security. Protocol security is often vaguely articulated and frequently conflated with concepts like “cost to attack.” When referring back to core ideas, clarity is vital. For instance, settlement assurance, a term first clearly defined by Nic Carter in 2019, is essential for comprehending the implications of recent blockchain vulnerabilities.
A fundamental concern revolving around Bitcoin’s long-term security arises from the underlying assumptions about its economic structure. Bitcoin’s model relies on transaction fees to sustain miners once the supply of new coins ceases. Currently, transaction fees amount to a mere fraction of the block subsidy. Many analysts predict that unless fees drastically increase over the coming decades, Bitcoin may struggle to maintain its mining reward.
Addressing Bitcoin’s sustainability and settlement assurance is not a purely engineering problem but a matter deeply intertwined with market dynamics. The future utility and demand for both Bitcoin as a currency and as a protocol are critical indicators of its survival. If either fails to satisfy market needs, the entire system may falter.
Moreover, altering Bitcoin’s monetary properties—whether through supply-side changes or implementing tail emissions—may not guarantee improved outcomes. It is crucial to recognize that such attempts may do more harm than good, potentially destabilizing the very characteristics that investors value. An inflationary approach risks diluting Bitcoin’s unique monetary appeal, which traditionally attracts long-term users focused on value preservation.
The recent difficulties within Monero, in the context of their tail emission strategy, further illustrate the challenges of relying on endless inflation as a security measure. Despite its implementation, Monero has not maintained competitive purchasing power, leading to stagnation in its market value over the last decade.
For blockchain advocates, especially those in the Bitcoin community, this situation serves as a clarion call. Acknowledging the importance of sound monetary properties is essential to fostering stability and security in blockchain systems. The future might dictate operational demand and value, but engineers and stakeholders must temper their instincts to alter established monetary frameworks for perceived improvements. By allowing market forces to navigate the trajectory of blockchain value, communities might secure a more robust and enduring economic future without compromising the integrity of their systems.
