Bitcoin Forum

So guys sorry that i write this here and yes i want that i take motivation to can continue my projects.

So i think that the really target on this community is a currency the is free and really honestly.


Therefore i want that everybody know that the biggest secret on bitcoin is...


That you can more mine as 21 Millionen coins . The maximum amount of coins is only the maximum of coins the you can send to the same time...

and why i write this many coins have a max coin . But its not the maximal mineable coins. The statement is maybe only true for pos coins but the means that you on amount of blocks you can only mine the coin over the pos algo. That means that it gives a infinitive of every coin to can mine it.


I write this to give the guys the honestly back so that the community know the secrets or tricks of it.

For example also banks and brokers have tricks to take guys money. yes its a warning of me so that guys know that gives developer the not lies and its important for me that it gives developer the are not scammer and her interesting is a really honestly decentralized world. Where you can make a trade without the fear that anybody is a scammer. I can understand that its really important to survive in the world and make money but its important for me that you makes money without scamming.

The problem is its my meaning . That the trustment is overall very low because it gives a lot of scammers and many try more tricks to steal your money for example https://www.facebook.com/3BloxKostenlosSpielen The game 3blox is a scammer game you wins and then you lose all your money

Your posting makes no sense at all!  ::)

Yep. I didn't understand a single thing at all. :-\

I think OP must be foreign has a really broken English. He is saying that the max coin limit is not 21 million, which is not true. I don't understand his reasoning to disprove this.

The limit is hard coded to be 21 million. The only person(s) that could do this are the devs + enough consensus. It is a granted fact that if they tried to change the total supply Bitcoin would automatically plummet to the floor, so it's a non issue.

No not really, I understand his English despise that gramar, what I mean I don't understand is the thoight the OP is trying to imply. Regarding the max coin limit. It doesn't make sense at al.  :-\

if you think that bitcoin has not limits in the supply and that the maximum is not 21M for silly reason, or for lacking of knowledge, then the answer is no it has a limit and there is no scam about it

Peter Schiff is saying the same shit  :D

i believe he thinks its only 21mill coins based on maths of block production of coins per 10 minutes.. i think he suggests if miners solve blocks in 5 minutes then the maths would suggest 42mill coins..

i dont think he knows about the difficulty changes, which keeps the blocks solved within the 10 minute average

dawn my broken english sorry. Not its not true . Its not limited. 21 Millionen Bitcoins is the maximum of coins what you can send on the same time.



for example if you want send a transaction with 21 millionen coins you get a error. But thats not meaning that you can mine more as 21 million amount of coins . I have tested it for past years. I have created a project my first project BitCrystal Unlimited. It has the target that you can have unlimited coins. So i have set the maximum coins on 9999999999 . Ok cool but all mined coins was exceeded the amount. My friend want send me 99999999999999999 coins. But it shows a error message with the content the maximum amount of coins you can send is 9999999999. And i have tested it its true.


The bitcoin can mine unlimited. The statement is only true for pos coins. The coins have a POW/POB limit.

You know that Bitcoin can be used to buy drugs  ;)

yes and the difficulty changes to the network hash power. Its meaning if nobody mines bitcoin than this one guy must reach the last target but after then he has the difficult of only a one guy.

When the 21 million coins have been created people can still mine at the pools.
For what you ask ... well for the transaction fees and to keep the coin going
Thats not mining new blocks lad ...

its right. Then if nobody can mines the coin because the limited is reached then not anybody is available to confirm the transactions and then the coin is useless . the protocol is dead. And pos uses if the pow/pob limit is reached then only the pos mining method. So you can say that no coin has a limit. Even the fourtytwo coin.

and franky not true. The difficulty target spacing have changed of bitcoin update to bitcoin update


i believe in the first update was every 2000 blocks or so so 7 days . And current the blocks adjustment rate is every block. Thats meaning the target is not that 21 million coins is reached at a determined year. and i have tested it with quarkcoin. In short term the term 21 million coins is so not true. And the setting of a max coin on any coin is only a option to make the coin raw or the guy the created the coin have not the knowledge that the maximum coin setting is for the maximum coins can send as a transaction. So if exceeded this value the transaction is marked as dos transaction.

after the 21 mill coins are mined. 90% of miners will move onto other projects, but the other 10% will continue as its still profitable for a select few to mine and grab the transaction fee's as their reward.

mining will continue. but how many miners will decrease due to a change in the price.

but this is something people do not need to worry about for decades.

So are you guys actually discussing the stuff OP has written? I have read through his post twice and I haven't understood a single thing! :)

in short term 21 million coins is the maximum amount of coins that you can send before the transaction is marked as ddos transaction.

You cannot send 21 million coins, because there will never be that much coins in circulation. Loads of them get lost on the way to the end... even Satoshi's 1 000 000 coins.

What App or wallet service are you using to test this? It might just be a software error within their software, showing the maximum parameters for that field.  ::)

Anyway, your English is very poor, and we struggle to understand your logic.  :( ... Why not post in your native language too, there might be someone willing to translate.   

Many experts have already done a thorough review of the code, and the hard limit of mined coins is 21 million, nothing more and nothing less. Looks like you still believe in some naysayers that still exist. ::)

Well ... I agree with OP in the point, that Bitcoin would be useless, when one single person holds 21 Mio of them (MINUS lost coins of course)

edit: (though I think OP still doesn't get the reason for that point)

From what I understand of the OP, it seems senseless.

the only reason why i write this was that many guys thinks that the max coins is the maximum of mineable coins. it is a mistake. And many coin creator/owner  exploit this detail to her benefit. To make his coin more valueable.

You are here in a Bitcoin forum. Everything you say can be right with a random Altcoin, but not with Bitcoin. Post your stuff in some of the Altcoin forums around and I bet you will find a lot of people agreeing with you....
You are wrong! End of thread.

Think maybe you are talking about altcoins which you can set a coin supply at any level you wish.  As everyone has said bitcoin is 21 and pretty sure if it wasn't this would have been flagged up a long time ago.

Nothing new.
That happened to Dogecoin.
But it won't happen to Bitcoin because its design isn't flawed to not respect the Halving God.

Huh? Where'd you get that info? Many security experts and programmers have already checked the codr thoroughly and found no such things such as your claims. ::)

I did not post a discussion i posted a simple fact.
There is not gonna be more than 21 million coins period  "."
Mining will be done sole on transactions when the maximum block count has been reached.

Ofcourse many will stop mining because the rewards might be very low, but thats besides the matter.

Bot posting with random noise

Do you mean that the mining limit of 21 million bitcoins is not true,
and now your revealing it? and your telling that the 21 million btc,
is only the max that you can send to other person. but still miners,
can mine more than 21 million? im so confused to your statement.
:( or is this what you mean?

yes exactly you can mine more as 21 million coins right.

Your statement is wrong and you have not provided anything but Altcoin gibberish.

yep they are. I'm not surprise though. but lets keep it a secret. 

Most users in the forum who are trying to earn btc doesn't bother about bitcoins having more than 21million or not, difficulties and the hassrate.
Hell with it, those guys just want the price up.

its not wrong i have tested it and when you not believe me my first project where users have my old wallet have the knowledge that the hove more coins as the max coins limit. And then the difficulty is so high as the strong of the miners. If you have a quantum miner then it is not a problem to break the difficulty rule. and its a secret why ? Many users love rare coins and to more rare a coin is , For example 42 coin has a value of 1200 bitcoins. Why the users thinks that the max coin limit is 42. If all users have the knowledge that no limit existed then the coin have not so a high price. Its normal that no limit must exist. Then if no block can mine nobody have the option to can send coins to a person or?

Enough of this already. The hard limit on the mineable coins are 21000000 (rounded from 20999999.7 afaik). If you have a solid proof on where do you see your claims, post it here. Bitcoin is not an alt with which devs can do a ninja edit and mine more coins than the expected limit. It doesn't matter what type of mining method bitcoins has; it doesn't matter if it is PoW, PoS or other algo. It has a limit, period.

you can mine more than 21million coins because transaction fees are mined too.
that does not change the fact there never will be more than 21million coins ;-)

I think OP try to prove that we can mine more than 21 Million coins, however it's known that's not possible, because this limit of 21 million coins mined is the maximum mined coins. However he try to say that he tested this fact but we don't see really solid proofs

Looks like it. Unfortunately for him the 21 million is a hard coded limit. Any changes attempted to this will greatly hurt the trust in bitcoin.

Unless the coins get diluted more, e.g. everybody gets 10 coins for every 1 coin they have, but than the end result would be the same for everybody.

The biggest secret that has remained a secret till date is the original identity of SatoshiNakamoto, the founder of Bitcoin protocol and the reference software. It was the first crypto-concurrency and was P2P. Though several people have been speculated to be associated with this name, nobody knows whether Satoshi Nakamoto is a real name or a pseudonym or whether it refers to a single person or a group of persons.

OP you need a lot of reading to do. Satoshi didn't design Bitcoin in a way that it would become useless after all the coins are mined, I mean he was a pretty smart guy. So once all the supply is mined, there will still be rewards in form of fees. Even if a lot of people leave to process fees, the ones that stay will get enough reward that it is worth it. Also, consider that by the year 2140 owners of 1 BTC will be a mega elite in Bitcoin wealth, so there will be a lot of people out there with a big incentive to keep their wealth relevant, and running a node will be effortless.

yes its right the reason is important for me that everywhere have the knowledge over this detail that not a limit exists for a coin.

.

 I didn't understand a single thing at all  ??? ???

Transaction fees are given in a transaction paid by the users, and is also a part of the 21m hard coded limit. It is different from the block reward which the miners get after solving a block.

Don't spread misinformation.

they are both part of the single coinbase transaction and its impossible to distinguish blockreward and earned fees.
so how is that misinformation?

it is because you're implying that there are more than 21M coins, which is false

actually there are a bit less than 21M coins, and this number will likely never be changed

well... thats why i wrote that afterwards: that does not change the fact there never will be more than 21million coins ;-)

(bolded it twice for you)

Lol I thought you are implying that there will be more than 21 million on the first comment, which is simply false.

What he saying What does it mean? I do not understand his secret about bitcoin.. Hmmm. I think he saying that bitcoin is bigger than i though?

:D yes, there will never be more than 21million coins. bitcoins social contract will never change: i am very sure about that ;-)

I did not understand this at all. Author is probably German or something?
I guess he says you can have more than 21 million bitcoins but we basically cannot.

There is no secret in bitcoin, it is open source. Everybody can contribute to it.

OP you need to learn to ESL

Also, the 21 million limit can be changed but it would destroy the value of all btc. Since it could only be changed by consensus no one will do it. Even if some entity could buy up enough coins in 2140 to steal consensus it wouldn't be worth it. It would be like throwing billions down the toilet.

Same reasoning why a 51% attack will never happen

A 51% attack could happen, but you're right. If that hashing power continues to mine on a different chain and not the main chain, the coin's value would surely plummet and bitcoin would be history.

A Bitcoin wallet integrated with Telegram,
Telebit allows bitcoin to be exchanged among other Telegram users as well as external bitcoin addresses.
“The [Telebit] system has been live for 2 weeks now, and we are now satisfied with its feature set and stability,” reads today’s announcement on the Bitcointalk forum. “Telebit leverages the Telegram messenger app itself which is well known, tested and available on pretty much every device.” Like other online wallets, Telebit wallets are stored in the cloud, so it’s not recommended that you use Telebit for receiving or storing large sums. Rather, Telebit is a portable wallet that you can carry on your smartphone and load with the bitcoin that you expect to spend in the short term – just like cash in a physical wallet.

What I understand he is saying is that there is no 21 million limit to the total coin number, but actually a 21 million transaction limit.

Do not understand the reasoning he does about that.

What?!, i am pretty sure there are not more than 21 million mineable coins, the reward decreases every 4 years or something slowing the supply of coins into the market. the total number of coins cant go over 21million

The bitcoin is deflationary at the moment. Everyday, some coins are lost. Maybe in the future, by consensus, we can change the total number of coins to compensate for the loss of coins to make bitcoin less deflationary. For example, we can award the nodes by giving 0.000001 bitcoin in total per day to all the nodes.

After trying to read OP I thought I was having a stroke.

A lot of coins are lost or burnt forever. People forgetting the keys, hard disk failures, robbery. So many coins aren't available at the moment.
That reduces the total net amount which will be in any case lower than 21 mln

You can verify it yourself in the source code:

Every block results in 50 new bitcoins. After every 210,000 blocks, this number is halved. So the next 210,000 blocks result in 25 new bitcoins per block, et cetera.
This means if you mine for an infinite amount of time, you will get: 210,000 × (50+25+12.5+6.25+.....) = 21,000,000 bitcoins.

It always wonders me how the F*CK people can still claim there is supposed to be 'secrets' in Bitcoin. Bitcoin is open source, transparent, verifiable, and not depending on trust or good faith or promises or anything.

Do you really think he/she will care about your perfect explanation?
May he/she was just drunk at the time of typing.

Let's not feed the troll.
 ;)

I have it from a pretty good source that Satoshi Nakamoto was a mathematics professor named John Nash who developed the seed of the idea which was worked out by a secret organization of research students attending Massachusetts Institute of Technology and Princeton University of whom collaborated together to begin its genesis.

/** The maximum allowed size for a serialized block, in bytes (network rule) */

FOR A BLOCK NOT FOR ALL BLOCKS

static const unsigned int MAX_BLOCK_SIZE = 1000000;
/** The maximum allowed number of signature check operations
static const CAmount MAX_MONEY = 21000000 * COIN;


bool CheckTransaction(const CTransaction& tx, CValidationState &state)
{
    // Basic checks that don't depend on any context
    if (tx.vin.empty())
        return state.DoS(10, false, REJECT_INVALID, "bad-txns-vin-empty");
    if (tx.vout.empty())
        return state.DoS(10, false, REJECT_INVALID, "bad-txns-vout-empty");
    // Size limits
    if (::GetSerializeSize(tx, SER_NETWORK, PROTOCOL_VERSION) > MAX_BLOCK_SIZE)
        return state.DoS(100, false, REJECT_INVALID, "bad-txns-oversize");

    // Check for negative or overflow output values
    CAmount nValueOut = 0;
    BOOST_FOREACH(const CTxOut& txout, tx.vout)
    {
        if (txout.nValue < 0)
            return state.DoS(100, false, REJECT_INVALID, "bad-txns-vout-negative");
       if (txout.nValue > MAX_MONEY)
            return state.DoS(100, false, REJECT_INVALID, "bad-txns-vout-toolarge");
        nValueOut += txout.nValue;
        if (!MoneyRange(nValueOut))
            return state.DoS(100, false, REJECT_INVALID, "bad-txns-txouttotal-toolarge");
    }

THIS LIMITS IS VALID FOR A TRANSACTION NOT FOR ALL TRANSACTIONS. THATS MEANING BITCOIN IS NOT LIMITED ONLY THE BLOCK HAVE LIMITED SIZES NOT THE PROTOCOL.


source
https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/search?utf8=%E2%9C%93&q=MAX_MONEY&type=Code


a genius you do not recognize at the conclusion. But on his abilities. And someone who is studying does not mean that he must be a genius.

Maybe you should check and understand the GetBlockSubsidy() function...

i just lost several of my precious braincells reading OP (and his grammar wasn't the only reason)  ::)

But I bet that OP lost a lot more of his brain cells as a side effect of whatever he was drinking/smoking when he had this brilliant idea.

Onkel Paul

Full stop  ;)

its true that  i have not a good english grammar. But the reason is iam come from germany not from england. And thats not meaning i dont have the knowledge over coins. And iam aware of this formula. But the trueness is bitcoin is unlimited and thats true. It existed not a part of source code that blocks the option that you can mine more as 21 million coins. its a secret because many guys for example the developer of fourtytwocoin uses this detail to make more profit for his coin.  Because many guys have not the knowledge and the experience through tests. I am developing currently on a final version of my decentralized exchange. And in order to create a real decentralized exchange. I have hard works on bitcoin protocol and common on developing and tests. What i want to say is that the formula is still not a provement that the bitcoin have a limit. and i understand the subsidy function and iam not a troll when i say that the process of mining is unlimited. Thats means automatically you can mine infinitely and because the difficulty is not a problem when you use a quantum computer. And i bet that nobody here have the knowledge as bitcoin really works. And the reason why bitcoin is worked is the Hash cash algorithm of Adam Black. my english is not the best but but you can do a favor rather than to deny everything and criticize times think what I really want to say so and why I want to say it. The sources that Mr Satoshi a mathematics Proffessor is oh my god. There are far too many rumors in this world. The Troll feed as funny. I only want a favor because creators lie to you because owners exploited the max coins detail to rise the value of coins. And I know the subsidy function and much more you of which you don't have heard anything in 10 years. My purpose is to you to face honestly. As I soon open a decentralized market its important for me that the users of this forum know that honestly its more important for as money.

please stop that bullshit.

there will never be more than 21million coins.
it is possible to mine more than 21million coins (because fees are mined also): but again: THERE WONT EVER BE MORE THAN 21 MILLION COINS IN CIRCULATION (probably way less because of lost privkeys)

btw there are many others (including me) who can read code... and we understand the block subsidy function.

IMHO i dont think you are able to develop a trustable decentralized exchange if you arent even able to understand bitcoin in that regard (thats one of the easy parts).

i am german too: thats no excuse (my english sucks too.. )

what is worring me, is that he is not trolling, i think he is serious on the matter

it's appear that he have a lot of confusion, due to altcoin and other stuff related to crypto in general

OP please stop before you make an even greater fool of yourself. The 21 million BTC is not hardcoded as a number in the source code, it is the (approximate) total amount mineable given by the mining rewards halving (until it is negligible).

Source: http://bitcoin.stackexchange.com/questions/161/how-many-bitcoins-will-there-eventually-be

bitcrystal, das Problem ist nicht die Sprache, sondern deine Argumentation.
- Ob ein Developer irgendeiner Altcoin dort das Mining von mehr als 21 Millionen ermöglicht, hat für das Bitcoin-Mining überhaupt keine Bedeutung. Lass also bitte Altcoins einfach aus der Argumentation raus, sie verwirren nur.
- Die zitierte Codestelle, die den maximalen Umfang einer Transaktion prüft (txout.nValue > MAX_MONEY), ist redundant, weil es sowieso nie Inputs in der Höhe geben kann geben kann. Diese Prüfung ist aber kein Argument dafür, dass es insgesamt mehr Bitcoins geben könnte.
- Auch die Tatsache, dass der Mining-Reward in einem Block nicht nur aus den frischen Bitcoins des Blocks besteht, sondern zusätzlich Transaction-Fees enthält, ändert nichts daran, dass die maximale Summe an Bitcoins, die jemals existieren werden, gleich 20999999.9769 ist. Transaction-Fees erhöhen nicht das Gesamtvolumen von Bitcoins, sondern verteilen nur ein bisschen um. Wenn einmal alle 20999999.9769 Bitcoins erzeugt worden sind, werden natürlich durch die Transaction-Fees keine neuen Bitcoins erzeugt, sondern nur bestehende Bitcoins umverteilt von den Benutzern zu den Minern.

Onkel Paul

Korrekt!

that here is a old function of the bitcoin src . Is fixxed in the new version


int64 static GetBlockValue(int nHeight, int64 nFees)
{
    int64 nSubsidy = 50 * COIN;

    // Subsidy is cut in half every 210000 blocks, which will occur approximately every 4 years
    nSubsidy >>= (nHeight / 210000);

    return nSubsidy + nFees;
}


what it happen if nheight /210000 = 31  or 63. Right the result is nSubsidy = 1. But if the number is higher then the result is not 0 . Then through the overflow the result is 0xFFFFFFFF . And even on the newest version you can watch this phenomen. Thats meaning if hacker find overflows the limit protection is breaked. And even in parts of source code you can find overflow exploits. And all old bitcoin clients can still produce reward after the limit is reached. Thats meaning that if anybody say bitcoin is safe limit is worked. The have not research the source code of bitcoin.

Even the newest version of bitcoin is not bug free here a test example
i have tested this .

shift: 31
k: 0
shift: 31
pn[i-k]: 01
pn[0-0]: 01
pn[0]: 01
pn[i-k-1]: ffffffff
pn[1-0-1]: ffffffff
pn[0]: ffffffff
pn[i-k]: 01
pn[1-0]: 01
pn[1]: 01
pn[i-k-1]: ffffffff
pn[2-0-1]: ffffffff
pn[1]: ffffffff
pn[i-k]: 01
pn[2-0]: 01
pn[2]: 01
pn[i-k-1]: ffffffff
pn[3-0-1]: ffffffff
pn[2]: ffffffff
pn[i-k]: 01
pn[3-0]: 01
pn[3]: 01
pn[i-k-1]: ffffffff
pn[4-0-1]: ffffffff
pn[3]: ffffffff
pn[i-k]: 01
pn[4-0]: 01
pn[4]: 01
pn[i-k-1]: ffffffff
pn[5-0-1]: ffffffff
pn[4]: ffffffff
pn[i-k]: 01
pn[5-0]: 01
pn[5]: 01
pn[i-k-1]: ffffffff
pn[6-0-1]: ffffffff
pn[5]: ffffffff
pn[i-k]: 01
pn[6-0]: 01
pn[6]: 01
pn[i-k-1]: ffffffff
pn[7-0-1]: ffffffff
pn[6]: ffffffff
pn[i-k]: 01
pn[7-0]: 01
pn[7]: 01

so ok if the shift is 32 then the result is not 01 . the result is momment

shift: 32
k: 1
shift: 0
pn[i-k]: ffffffff
pn[1-1]: ffffffff
pn[0]: ffffffff
pn[i-k]: ffffffff
pn[2-1]: ffffffff
pn[1]: ffffffff
pn[i-k]: ffffffff
pn[3-1]: ffffffff
pn[2]: ffffffff
pn[i-k]: ffffffff
pn[4-1]: ffffffff
pn[3]: ffffffff
pn[i-k]: ffffffff
pn[5-1]: ffffffff
pn[4]: ffffffff
pn[i-k]: ffffffff
pn[6-1]: ffffffff
pn[5]: ffffffff
pn[i-k]: ffffffff
pn[7-1]: ffffffff
pn[6]: ffffffff

Drücken Sie eine beliebige Taste . . .


0xFFFFFFF

here my test source code i have used the overloading operator function of the bitcoin source

#include <iostream>
#include <cstdlib>

using namespace std;

typedef void (*func)();

template<unsigned int BITS>
class base_uint
{
protected:
    enum { WIDTH=BITS/32 };
    unsigned int pn[WIDTH];
public:

    base_uint()
    {
        for (int i = 0; i < WIDTH; i++)
            pn = 0xFFFFFFFF;
        printf("cool\n");
    }
    
    func e(func x)
    {
        return x;
    }
    
     base_uint(base_uint& t)
    {
        for (int i = 0; i < WIDTH; i++)
            pn = t.pn;
        printf("cool\n");
    }
    
    const base_uint operator~() const
    {
        base_uint ret;
        for (int i = 0; i < WIDTH; i++)
            ret.pn = ~pn;
        return ret;
    }
    
    base_uint(const base_uint& b)
    {
        for (int i = 0; i < WIDTH; i++)
            pn = b.pn;
    }
    
    base_uint(unsigned long long b)
    {
        pn[0] = (unsigned int)b;
        pn[1] = (unsigned int)(b >> 32);
        for (int i = 2; i < WIDTH; i++)
            pn = 0;
    }
    
    base_uint& operator>>=(unsigned int shift);
};

template <unsigned int BITS>
base_uint<BITS>& base_uint<BITS>::operator>>=(unsigned int shift)
{
    base_uint<BITS> a(*this);
    for (int i = 0; i < WIDTH; i++)
        pn = 0;
    printf("shift: %d\n",shift);
    int k = shift / 32;
    printf("k: %d\n",k);
    shift = shift % 32;
    printf("shift: %d\n",shift);
    for (int i = 0; i < WIDTH; i++) {
        if (i - k - 1 >= 0 && shift != 0)
        {
            pn[i - k - 1] |= (a.pn << (32 - shift));
            printf("pn[i-k-1]: %02x\n",pn[i-k-1]);
            printf("pn[%d-%d-%d]: %02x\n",i,k,1,pn[i-k-1]);
            printf("pn[%d]: %02x\n",i-k-1,pn[i-k-1]);
        }  
        if (i - k >= 0) {
            pn[i - k] |= (a.pn >> shift);
            printf("pn[i-k]: %02x\n",pn[i-k]);
            printf("pn[%d-%d]: %02x\n",i,k,pn[i-k]);
            printf("pn[%d]: %02x\n",i-k,pn[i-k]);
        }
    }
    return *this;
}

void tx()
{
     printf("alter\n");
}

int main()
{
    unsigned int e = 32;
    base_uint<256> t;
   // unsigned int t = 0xFFFFFFFF;
    t >>= e;
    //t.e(tx)();
    int ef = 999999999;
    ef += 999999999;
    ef += 999999999;
    ef += 999999999;
    ef += 999999999;
    ef += 999999999;
    ef += 999999999;
    ef += 999999999;
    ef += 999999999;
    ef += 999999999;
    ef += 999999999;
    int halvings = ef / 210000;
    printf("%02x\n",halvings);
        system("pause");
    return 0;
}






pn[6-1]: ffffff
pn[5]: ffffff
pn[i-k-1]: ffffffff
pn[7-1-1]: ffffffff
pn[5]: ffffffff
pn[i-k]: ffffff
pn[7-1]: ffffff
pn[6]: ffffff
ffffdcf1
Drücken Sie eine beliebige Taste . . .


    int halvings = nHeight / consensusParams.nSubsidyHalvingInterval;
   // Force block reward to zero when right shift is undefined.
   if (halvings >= 64)

This line fixxed the bugg. But if anybody have older clients as 0.9.2 then the process is repeated and the 21 million limit is breaked. Or if the shift is 32 then is repeated the process. i have tested it.
    CAmount nSubsidy = 50 * COIN;
    // Subsidy is cut in half every 210,000 blocks which will occur approximately every 4 years.
    nSubsidy >>= halvings; If halvings is 32 then the shift is undefined and a overflow is created.
    return nSubsidy;
}

Thats meaning if the shift is 32 what is not higher as 64 then the result is 50 coins. If my calculation is not correct please corrigate me.

In the older version of the function there was a bug that results in undefined behaviour when the shift value is larger than 63. The shift expression CAmount is a 64bit integer. There is no problem using a shift value of 32. This change is a hard fork. That means some old clients might split the blockchain in about 200 years from now if they are still in use at that point in time.

Oh, good to know. I'll mark that year on my calendar so that I don't forget to be bothered when it happens.

Onkel Paul

At this point in time you maybe need to find a computer which is able to run a more than 200 year old software.  8)

right but in arith_256.cpp is also this bugg this meaning that all 256 bits version of uint256 have also this bugg. Thats mean if a hacker or anyway can find a exploit to use this problem. Clearly that no software is bugg free and a good tricky hacker/genius find always a bugg to exploit software

i have tested your statement its all right.

But if you use -64 then the bugg is ever worked

and because CAmount is signed thats meaning its possible to make this value to < 0

#include <iostream>
#include <cstdlib>

using namespace std;
typedef signed long long int64_t;
typedef int64_t CAmount;
static const CAmount COIN = 100000000;
static const CAmount CENT = 1000000;

typedef void (*func)();

template<unsigned int BITS>
class base_uint
{
protected:
    enum { WIDTH=BITS/32 };
    unsigned int pn[WIDTH];
public:

    base_uint()
    {
        for (int i = 0; i < WIDTH; i++)
            pn = 0xFFFFFFFF;
        printf("cool\n");
    }
    
    func e(func x)
    {
        return x;
    }
    
     base_uint(base_uint& t)
    {
        for (int i = 0; i < WIDTH; i++)
            pn = t.pn;
        printf("cool\n");
    }
    
    const base_uint operator~() const
    {
        base_uint ret;
        for (int i = 0; i < WIDTH; i++)
            ret.pn = ~pn;
        return ret;
    }
    
    base_uint(const base_uint& b)
    {
        for (int i = 0; i < WIDTH; i++)
            pn = b.pn;
    }
    
    base_uint(unsigned long long b)
    {
        pn[0] = (unsigned int)b;
        pn[1] = (unsigned int)(b >> 32);
        for (int i = 2; i < WIDTH; i++)
            pn = 0;
    }
    
    base_uint& operator>>=(unsigned int shift);
};

template <unsigned int BITS>
base_uint<BITS>& base_uint<BITS>::operator>>=(unsigned int shift)
{
    base_uint<BITS> a(*this);
    for (int i = 0; i < WIDTH; i++)
        pn = 0;
    printf("shift: %d\n",shift);
    int k = shift / 32;
    printf("k: %d\n",k);
    shift = shift % 32;
    printf("shift: %d\n",shift);
    for (int i = 0; i < WIDTH; i++) {
        if (i - k - 1 >= 0 && shift != 0)
        {
            pn[i - k - 1] |= (a.pn << (32 - shift));
            printf("pn[i-k-1]: %02x\n",pn[i-k-1]);
            printf("pn[%d-%d-%d]: %02x\n",i,k,1,pn[i-k-1]);
            printf("pn[%d]: %02x\n",i-k-1,pn[i-k-1]);
        }  
        if (i - k >= 0) {
            pn[i - k] |= (a.pn >> shift);
            printf("pn[i-k]: %02x\n",pn[i-k]);
            printf("pn[%d-%d]: %02x\n",i,k,pn[i-k]);
            printf("pn[%d]: %02x\n",i-k,pn[i-k]);
        }
    }
    return *this;
}

void tx()
{
     printf("alter\n");
}

int main()
{
   /* unsigned int e = 32;
    base_uint<256> t;
   // unsigned int t = 0xFFFFFFFF;
    t >>= e;
    //t.e(tx)();
    int ef = 999999999;
    ef += 999999999;
    ef += 999999999;
    ef += 999999999;
    ef += 999999999;
    ef += 999999999;
    ef += 999999999;
    ef += 999999999;
    ef += 999999999;
    ef += 999999999;
    ef += 999999999;
    int halvings = ef / 210000;
    printf("%02x\n",halvings);*/
    CAmount e = 25*COIN;
    e >>= -64;
    printf("%02x\n",e);
        system("pause");
    return 0;
}


here you can test it. thats meaning if you find a good exploit and have time you need only a option to make the number to < 0 and the bugg is worked again.

I think the problem starts when nHeight rolls over and becomes negative. This leads to a negative value of the int halving variable. A negative halving variable triggers undefined behaviour of the the shift operation. Using the bitcoin constant values and a system with 32bit int values, this bug is triggered in about 40000 years.

Well found. bitcrystal, did you report your finding to the core developers? We need good bitcoin supporters like you.

not i havent reported it to core developers. and thanks bitcoincountry. are you a core developer on bitcoin? BitcoinCountry.

At the momment i developed for the stockmarket (in order to make money so that have enough time to make my projects done decentralized exchange and my coin). At the momment is all websites offline of me. Very sorry for that but the problem is iam only a one dev. and not a developer team as coinffeeine etc. I do my best bitcoincountry but if you want write me a message and i can help you so good i can