|
Title: March 2013 Chain Fork Post-Mortem [Draft] Post by: Stephen Gornick on March 21, 2013, 12:34:10 PM I see on the Bitcoin.it wiki is BIP 0050.
March 2013 Chain Fork Post-Mortem [Draft] - http://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/BIP_0050 Title: Re: March 2013 Chain Fork Post-Mortem [Draft] Post by: Stephen Gornick on March 21, 2013, 12:47:54 PM For resolving the double spending, I wonder if there's another approach for recovering after an accidental hard fork.
I could see providing at startup a block hash which is the block at the end of the forked chain. Transactions from all those blocks (down to where the fork started) get added to the mem pool and nothing else until those transactions are either invalid or included in blocks. Additionally, the node broadcasts the transactions as well to peers. Other blocks would still be accepted like normal, so there is still a risk of a double spend from a successful race attack, but since any transactions in the fork would be re-broadcast as well as be given priority for inclusion the chances of success by the person trying to get away with a race attack double spend decrease significantly. Title: Re: March 2013 Chain Fork Post-Mortem [Draft] Post by: justusranvier on March 21, 2013, 01:58:33 PM This sentence is ambiguous and confusing:
“The pre-0.8 incompatible chain at that point had around 60% of the hash power ensuring the split did not automatically resolve.” |