monsterer (OP)
Legendary
 Offline
Activity: 1008
Merit: 1000
|
 |
June 21, 2015, 07:01:18 PM |
|
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.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"With e-currency based on cryptographic proof, without the need to
trust a third party middleman, money can be secure and transactions
effortless." -- Satoshi
|
|
|
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
fishy91
Member
Offline
Activity: 63
Merit: 10
|
|
June 21, 2015, 07:12:37 PM |
|
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.
|
|
|
|
|
d5000
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 3906
Merit: 6142
Decentralization Maximalist
|
|
June 21, 2015, 07:24:27 PM |
|
If I understand the principle right, Timekoin (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. |
|
|
|
MicroGuy
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 2506
Merit: 1030
Twitter @realmicroguy
|
|
June 21, 2015, 07:25:06 PM |
|
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.
It's possible but I haven't seen an implementation to date. |
|
|
|
|
monsterer (OP)
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1008
Merit: 1000
|
|
June 21, 2015, 07:40:17 PM |
|
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. |
|
|
|
|
MicroGuy
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 2506
Merit: 1030
Twitter @realmicroguy
|
|
June 21, 2015, 07:49:10 PM |
|
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. |
|
|
|
|
monsterer (OP)
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1008
Merit: 1000
|
|
June 21, 2015, 07:56:34 PM |
|
It would also have to have source code inaccessible by anyone on earth, along with other attributes.
What makes you say that? |
|
|
|
|
EBK1000
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1148
Merit: 1000
A Wound in Eternity
|
|
June 21, 2015, 08:04:54 PM |
|
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. 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? |
Soooooooon...............
|
|
|
MicroGuy
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 2506
Merit: 1030
Twitter @realmicroguy
|
|
June 21, 2015, 08:40:15 PM
Last edit: June 22, 2015, 02:49:44 AM by MicroGuy |
|
It would also have to have source code inaccessible by anyone on earth, along with other attributes.
What makes you say that? Because if its software could be changed, it would be possible to make a fork (hard or soft). |
|
|
|
|
monsterer (OP)
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1008
Merit: 1000
|
|
June 21, 2015, 09:05:10 PM |
|
Because if its software could be changed, it would possible to make a fork.
Ahh, you're talking about hard forks? I was talking about soft forks due to consensus disagreements. |
|
|
|
|
monsterer (OP)
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1008
Merit: 1000
|
|
June 21, 2015, 09:05:59 PM |
|
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?
If you allow anyone to produce a block, then the easier it is to do so, the more forks you'll get. |
|
|
|
|
|
Ingatqhvq
|
|
June 22, 2015, 02:15:23 AM |
|
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.
No, fork is a feature of blockchian. |
|
|
|
|
MicroGuy
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 2506
Merit: 1030
Twitter @realmicroguy
|
|
June 22, 2015, 02:50:50 AM |
|
Because if its software could be changed, it would possible to make a fork.
Ahh, you're talking about hard forks? I was talking about soft forks due to consensus disagreements. 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. |
|
|
|
|
monsterer (OP)
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1008
Merit: 1000
|
|
June 22, 2015, 08:13:00 AM |
|
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. |
|
|
|
|
|
cjambox
|
|
June 22, 2015, 09:15:02 AM |
|
there is monero and it isn't fork of btc edit:sry didnt read thread  |
|
|
|
|
monsterer (OP)
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1008
Merit: 1000
|
|
July 24, 2015, 09:38:49 AM |
|
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.
|
|
|
|
|
dadon
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1190
Merit: 1002
Pecvniate obedivnt omnia.
|
|
July 24, 2015, 09:50:44 AM |
|
there is monero and it isn't fork of btc edit:sry didnt read thread Its a fork of bytecoin, nice try. |
|
|
|
|
|
spartacusrex
|
|
July 24, 2015, 09:58:46 AM |
|
Well.. I was just discussing this very thing.. kind of.. https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1123605.0The 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. |
Life is Code.
|
|
|
monsterer (OP)
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1008
Merit: 1000
|
|
July 24, 2015, 10:05:00 AM |
|
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. |
|
|
|
|
Nxtblg
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 924
Merit: 1000
|
|
July 24, 2015, 01:21:38 PM |
|
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.
As long as the magic unicorns in the sky take pity on us and weave a magic spell that eliminates network latency... |
|
|
|
|
