Bitcoin Forum

I want to understand what would have been repercussions of forking if miners were not persuaded to go back to version 0.7, either 0.7 fork would have been bigger as is the case now or 0.8 branch would have taken precedence in that case 0.7 orphan blocks would have been retried, so what was the big loss in that case?

0.8 was winning, 0.7 wouldn't have stuck around for long.  It'd have been a race for the 0.7 upgrade exits.

The longest chain always wins.

People would be forced to update their clients.

so what was wrong with that, miners would have done automatically, due to money involved , rest don't care much

some miners lost the latest mined coins.  some transactions will be reversed.  that's it.

BTC is now quite centralized.  A small team with guns can hijack the whole network by forcing  mining pool operators to co-operate with them.

This is the most concerning thing about the fork.

I thought if the "0.8" fork continued users of the "0.7" clients might have not been able to spend there money or have random tansactions rejected?

I'm confused, why we back on 0.7 clients then if the bug is with them? there must be other implications?

And who will force the miners to stay in the highjacked pools?

Plus even in that senario what could the highjacker do? They can't tranfer coins they don't control the wallet to.

All they could do is not confirm transactions and slow the network down, people's coins would still be safe. After miners moved to new pools, the network rate would bounce back up.

What if the hijackers replace the blockchain with the fake one? All users will find their wallet empty , the hijackers' wallet  full of coins.

To avoid this kind of disaster,  users need re-gathering with new version of software and the old blockchain.
So it comes the initial question:  the BTC community actually need a government to tell users what to do finally.  :)

This question has been asked so many times already...

https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Weaknesses#Attacker_has_a_lot_of_computing_power

Please read that! (Or face being ignored)

The hijacker could only delay or DoS bitcoin transactions, and might be able to double spend his bitcoins. That would probably cause a temporary panic on MtGox (which would mean some people would be able to buy a lot of bitcoins).

Your coins would be safe!

0.8 had all along been saying, over and over, as part of its response to any RPC command, not to use it for mining nor for commerce.

So hey, its not like its users hadn't been warned, constantly, nagged even.

But the 0.7 GUI users types aren't used to "oh gosh looks like upgrading time has come" messages being of a "upgrade right this second or the sky will fall" urgency.

So on balance, it maybe makes sense to prove to the 0.8 users that the nagging was there for a reason instead of freaking out all the drones who like their shiny GUI to be patient and nice about asking them to please someday think about maybe upgrading sometime, maybe even sometime relatively soon, if that isn't too inconvenient, thank you kindly.

-MarkM-
 

All I know is I'm really glad Bitcoin is open source, maybe litecoin isn't such a bad idea but we'll have to wait and see what's going to happen.

Is litecoin not open source? Can you point me at more information on this if so?

The miners were asked, not forced.

I know it can be difficult, but do try to keep up.

@hdcafe

It's all dependent on the miners who provide the majority of the hashing power. Unless you're implying that the they would follow orders from a pool admin without a legitamate reason.

I was actually thinking about this.  What if BTC was compromised via malicious coding?  Of course, we could switch over to a not-compromised coin, but how long would it take for the market to recover?  Seems more necessary than ever to invest in alternate coins--they say, don't keep your eggs all in one basket.

You'd have to hijack the entire dev team because they check each other's work.

I'd bet in that situation the majority of miners will still fall back to 0.7 as a safe measure, since the fork was not planned

It's risk measurement. Fall back to 0.7 is the least risky strategy since it has been working well for much longer time than 0.8. If you urge the rest of the nodes to upgrade to 0.8, and 0.8 showed another problem (since it has been on the field for less than a month, you can not rule out that possibility), then you are in big trouble

Now after some analysis you know that the bug is hidden in BDB, but at the time when the chain forked, no one can guarantee that 0.8 has no problem, but everyone know that 0.7 works fine

You mean, if 0.8 shows _A_ problem... the problem in this case, was pre 0.8......unless you count that pesky little issue that it tends to reject and fork on valid blocks... such a little issue, barely worth mentioning, really...

-- Smoov

Not a problem, that is what the Ministry of Truth is for, they have your back, all is doubleplus good: those blocks it rejects and forks on are doubleplus-ungood blocks, not valid blocks at all, you see...

-MarkM-