Bitcoin Forum

Is there an altcoin which is designed to run without the possibility of having forks in it's blockchain...

...Excluding ripple, which does not have forks because the consensus forming nodes are all owned by ripple labs.

I don't think so unless someone has come up with something besides proof of work, or proof of stake.

I don't really understand how DPOS works, that might be forkless.

If I understand the principle right, Timekoin (http://timekoin.org) (TK) is "forkless" as the blockchains are continually compared between clients and non-complying clients are banned. A person who wants to impose a "fork" must do a complete takeover of the blockchain with a sybil attack.

But the coin activity is very low.

It's possible but I haven't seen an implementation to date.

As far as I can tell, it ought to be possible - you trade having forks for having the network stop producing blocks until a consensus is reached.

It would also have to have source code inaccessible by anyone on earth, along with other attributes.

What makes you say that?

So, would you say that as a general rule a block time of say 20 minutes will produce less forks that a block time of say 2 minutes?

Because if its software could be changed, it would be possible to make a fork (hard or soft).

Ahh, you're talking about hard forks? I was talking about soft forks due to consensus disagreements.

If you allow anyone to produce a block, then the easier it is to do so, the more forks you'll get.

No, fork is a feature of blockchian.
                                                                               

If the software can be changed, then a consensus disagreement is possible regardless of whether you're talking about a soft fork or a hard fork.

You don't need to modify the software to get a consensus disagreement - handling this is part of the design of every crypto chain. I don't see why this must lead to a fork, tho; you could easily imagine a system which resulted in no consensus, instead of a fork.

there is monero and it isn't fork of btc

edit:sry didnt read thread :)

I'd like to reopen this thread because it challenges the establishment.

Nearly all blockchains use an amortised consensus mechanism; consensus on a block is achieved gradually, over a long time, by subsequent blocks being built on top. Disagreements in this amortised consensus is what leads to forks.

If you had a system where consensus was achieved by the network as a whole at the same time, in theory you could do away with the need for forks.

Its a fork of bytecoin, nice try.

Well.. I was just discussing this very thing.. kind of..

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1123605.0

The truth is that in a blockchain style system anyone can attempt to fork the chain at any time. There is nothing you can do about it, except not accept the fork.

Some times a fork is required, for the security and stability of your network. You would be wise to accept it. But most of the time it is feature creep..

To create a 'chain' that doesn't fork, I think you need to create a chain that 'should' never need to fork.

So if you come up with a coin that IS quantum resistant, uses arbitrary precision maths, has the blocksize issues sorted, and does all the things you are EVER going to want it to do, etc..  I think that's as close as you're going to get.

This way a HARD FORK, 'should' never be required.

I don't really have a problem with hard forks, it's soft forks that I'm trying to reason through. Soft forks cause all kinds of chain attack vectors to be possible and are the limiting factor in block production time, which directly relates to speed of confirmation.

As long as the magic unicorns in the sky take pity on us and weave a magic spell that eliminates network latency...

Latency doesn't have to mean forks will occur. If you only include the transactions which are common between the majority of nodes in a block, and postpone the rest, latency becomes irrelevant.

So you're suggesting "front-running" the construction of the block itself by securing consensus in the tx mempool? How would you achieve that consensus, given the Byzantine-general problem?

If you know who the block producers are a priori, you could achieve consensus by having them each submit a POW for their view of the current mempool. Disallowing duplicate results for the POW solution, you then chose the most common block hash submitted as the mempool consensus and all the corresponding transactions then get put in the block.

You need to know who they are in advance because otherwise you could have islands of nodes producing their own isolated consensus, which would indeed be a fork.

Not to mention, protections from Sybil attacks and related nastiness. It sounds like you're proposing tx-mempool checkpointing.

What I'm proposing is much more like ripple with POW

Oh, okay.

forklesscoin doesn't exist.
but Creva coin, an electronic money developed by teams with experiences in developing bit coins, has an algorithm as bit coins d.

so i think crevacoin is safe coin.