Bitcoin Forum
April 20, 2018, 02:16:32 AM *
News: Latest stable version of Bitcoin Core: 0.16.0  [Torrent]. (New!)
 
   Home   Help Search Donate Login Register  
Pages: [1]
  Print  
Author Topic: March 2013 Chain Fork Post-Mortem [Draft]  (Read 861 times)
Stephen Gornick
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2478
Merit: 1000


View Profile
March 21, 2013, 12:34:10 PM
 #1

I see on the Bitcoin.it wiki is BIP 0050.

March 2013 Chain Fork Post-Mortem [Draft]
 - http://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/BIP_0050
1524190592
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1524190592

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1524190592
Reply with quote  #2

1524190592
Report to moderator
1524190592
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1524190592

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1524190592
Reply with quote  #2

1524190592
Report to moderator
1524190592
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1524190592

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1524190592
Reply with quote  #2

1524190592
Report to moderator
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
Stephen Gornick
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2478
Merit: 1000


View Profile
March 21, 2013, 12:47:54 PM
 #2

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.
justusranvier
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1400
Merit: 1000



View Profile WWW
March 21, 2013, 01:58:33 PM
 #3

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.”
Pages: [1]
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Sponsored by , a Bitcoin-accepting VPN.
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!