Bitcoin Forum
January 29, 2023, 11:27:23 PM *
News: Latest Bitcoin Core release: 24.0.1 [Torrent]
 
   Home   Help Search Login Register More  
Pages: [1] 2 »  All
  Print  
Author Topic: Bitcoin Fork: alternate scenario  (Read 2318 times)
auzaar (OP)
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 151
Merit: 100



View Profile
March 12, 2013, 06:39:01 AM
 #1

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?
1675034843
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1675034843

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1675034843
Reply with quote  #2

1675034843
Report to moderator
1675034843
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1675034843

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1675034843
Reply with quote  #2

1675034843
Report to moderator
1675034843
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1675034843

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1675034843
Reply with quote  #2

1675034843
Report to moderator
"There should not be any signed int. If you've found a signed int somewhere, please tell me (within the next 25 years please) and I'll change it to unsigned int." -- Satoshi
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction.
1675034843
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1675034843

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1675034843
Reply with quote  #2

1675034843
Report to moderator
zebedee
Donator
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 668
Merit: 500



View Profile
March 12, 2013, 06:40:53 AM
 #2

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.
Monster Tent
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 238
Merit: 100



View Profile
March 12, 2013, 06:42:18 AM
 #3

The longest chain always wins.

People would be forced to update their clients.


auzaar (OP)
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 151
Merit: 100



View Profile
March 12, 2013, 06:46:31 AM
 #4

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
hdcafe
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 100
Merit: 10


View Profile
March 12, 2013, 06:50:05 AM
 #5

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.

Monster Tent
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 238
Merit: 100



View Profile
March 12, 2013, 06:51:11 AM
 #6

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.

whitenight639
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 154
Merit: 100



View Profile
March 12, 2013, 07:02:19 AM
 #7

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?

125uWc197UW5kM659m4uwEakxoNHzMKzwz
hugolp
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1148
Merit: 1001


Radix-The Decentralized Finance Protocol


View Profile
March 12, 2013, 07:03:00 AM
 #8

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.



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


               ▄████████▄
               ██▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀
              ██▀
             ███
▄▄▄▄▄       ███
██████     ███
    ▀██▄  ▄██
     ▀██▄▄██▀
       ████▀
        ▀█▀
The Radix DeFi Protocol is
R A D I X

███████████████████████████████████

The Decentralized

Finance Protocol
Scalable
▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄
██▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀██
██                   ██
██                   ██
████████████████     ██
██            ██     ██
██            ██     ██
██▄▄▄▄▄▄      ██     ██
██▀▀▀▀██      ██     ██
██    ██      ██     
██    ██      ██
███████████████████████

███
Secure
      ▄▄▄▄▄
    █████████
   ██▀     ▀██
  ███       ███

▄▄███▄▄▄▄▄▄▄███▄▄
██▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀██
██             ██
██             ██
██             ██
██             ██
██             ██
██    ███████████

███
Community Driven
      ▄█   ▄▄
      ██ ██████▄▄
      ▀▀▄█▀   ▀▀██▄
     ▄▄ ██       ▀███▄▄██
    ██ ██▀          ▀▀██▀
    ██ ██▄            ██
   ██ ██████▄▄       ██▀
  ▄██       ▀██▄     ██
  ██▀         ▀███▄▄██▀
 ▄██             ▀▀▀▀
 ██▀
▄██
▄▄
██
███▄
▀███▄
 ▀███▄
  ▀████
    ████
     ████▄
      ▀███▄
       ▀███▄
        ▀████
          ███
           ██
           ▀▀

███
Radix is using our significant technology
innovations to be the first layer 1 protocol
specifically built to serve the rapidly growing DeFi.
Radix is the future of DeFi
█████████████████████████████████████

   ▄▄█████
  ▄████▀▀▀
  █████
█████████▀
▀▀█████▀▀
  ████
  ████
  ████

Facebook

███

             ▄▄
       ▄▄▄█████
  ▄▄▄███▀▀▄███
▀▀███▀ ▄██████
    █ ███████
     ██▀▀▀███
           ▀▀

Telegram

███

▄      ▄███▄▄
██▄▄▄ ██████▀
████████████
 ██████████▀
   ███████▀
 ▄█████▀▀

Twitter

██████

...Get Tokens...
rocks
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1153
Merit: 1000


View Profile
March 12, 2013, 07:07:23 AM
 #9

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.



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.
hdcafe
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 100
Merit: 10


View Profile
March 12, 2013, 07:28:42 AM
Last edit: March 12, 2013, 07:41:08 AM by hdcafe
 #10



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.  Smiley
sounds
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 140
Merit: 100

1221iZanNi5igK7oAA7AWmYjpsyjsRbLLZ


View Profile
March 12, 2013, 07:43:18 AM
 #11

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, innocent users need re-gathering with new version of software.
So it comes the initial question:  the BTC community actually need a government to tell users what to do finally.  Smiley
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!
markm
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2898
Merit: 1075



View Profile WWW
March 12, 2013, 07:50:54 AM
 #12

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-
 

Browser-launched Crossfire client now online (select CrossCiv server for Galactic  Milieu)
Free website hosting with PHP, MySQL etc: http://hosting.knotwork.com/
Lethn
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1540
Merit: 1000



View Profile WWW
March 12, 2013, 09:38:49 AM
 #13

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.
No_2
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 893
Merit: 1026


BTC: the beginning of stake-based public resources


View Profile
March 12, 2013, 09:06:37 PM
 #14

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?
mwag
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 38
Merit: 0


View Profile
March 12, 2013, 09:12:03 PM
 #15

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

The miners were asked, not forced.

I know it can be difficult, but do try to keep up.
alir
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 216
Merit: 11



View Profile
March 12, 2013, 09:22:17 PM
 #16

@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.
Mike Christ
aka snapsunny
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1078
Merit: 1003



View Profile
March 12, 2013, 09:25:34 PM
 #17

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.

foggyb
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1526
Merit: 1002



View Profile
March 13, 2013, 02:24:05 AM
 #18

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

         ▄████████▄▄
         ████████████▄
  ▄███▄  ████████████▀
 ███████  █████████▀
▐███████▌  ████▀▀   ▄▄▄███▄
█████████▌  ▀  ▄▄▄█████████
▀████▀▀▀     ██████████████
      ▄▄███  █████████████▌
   ▄████████  ████████████
  ███████████  ██████████
  ▀██████████▌  ███████▀
    ▀████████▌   ▀███▀
       ▀▀███▀
.Betnomi.     ▄██▄
     ▐███
█▄  ▄▄▄
 ▀█▄███▄██▀██▄
  ▀█▀▐███▌ ▄█▀
     ██████

     ██████▌
    ▐██████
    ███████
    █▌   █▌
   ▐▌    █
   █     █

  ▐▄     ▄▌
.
......8000+ SLOTS......
   ▄██▄
   ▐███
 ▄██▀▀▀███▄▄
██████████▀██
▐█
▀███████  ▀██▄
██
███████▌   ▀█▄
█▌
█████▄▄█▄   ▀█▌
▀▀
█████████▄
   ▀████ ▀███▄
    ▀
███  ▀██
      ▀███▄  ▀██
   ▄██▄ ▀██  ▀██
   ▀██▀  ▀█▌  ▀██▄
.
......HIGH ODDS......
██
██
██
██
██
██
██
██
██
██
██
██
██
   ▄▄█████▄▄▄
 ████▄███████
███▀    █████
██      ████
▀███▄    ████
 ▀███▄  ████
  ▀████████
    ▀████
    ███▄▀
   █████▄▀▄
  ████████▄▀
  ██████████
   ▀▀██▀▄▀▄
██
██
██
██
██
██
██
██
██
██
██
██
██
[/
johnyj
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1974
Merit: 1007


Beyond Imagination


View Profile
March 14, 2013, 12:47:10 PM
 #19

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?

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

Smoovious
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 504
Merit: 500

Scattering my bits around the net since 1980


View Profile
March 15, 2013, 01:55:05 AM
 #20

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?

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
You mean, if 0.8 shows _A_ problem... the problem in this case, was pre 0.8...
Quote
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
...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
Pages: [1] 2 »  All
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!