Binance talked about a "re-org" What is a re-org? how does that work with BTC?

[TimeBits]

Hei guiz I am trying to learn about bitcoin what is this? I hear it in the news today

[Bountyhonter]

How can you not know what Bitcoin is since you joined the forum in 2018 and have many posts and a few merits.

[TimeBits]

How can you not know what Bitcoin is since you joined the forum in 2018 and have many posts and a few merits.

I know what bitcoin is, how blockchain works, but I never heard the term Re-org, Roll back and Re-roll I read them in a article today on the Binance stuff, I guess the CEO wanted to do that? What is that?
I been here since 2010-11 ish. Just a new account. Lost the keys to my old car. But I still don`t understand a "re-org" approach that they cannot re-org.

[Zadicar]

How can you not know what Bitcoin is since you joined the forum in 2018 and have many posts and a few merits.

I know what bitcoin is, how blockchain works, but I never heard the term Re-org, Roll back and Re-roll I read them in a article today on the Binance stuff, I guess the CEO wanted to do that? What is that?
I been here since 2010-11 ish. Just a new account. Lost the keys to my old car.

Trying to find on their blog https://www.binance.com/en/blog but i cant find on what you are saying.Can you provide the link? I dont even have the idea about that re-org etc.

Try this thread this could help you understand few things about Bitcoin.
Hope that it would help you answer your questions.

You are just posting up without reading. Try to look again above your post.

[harizen]

I know what bitcoin is, how blockchain works, but I never heard the term Re-org, Roll back and Re-roll I read them in a article today on the Binance stuff, I guess the CEO wanted to do that? What is that?
I been here since 2010-11 ish. Just a new account. Lost the keys to my old car.

Is this the article you are talking about?

https://www.coindesk.com/binance-may-consider-bitcoin-rollback-following-40-million-hack

If yes then just by reading the whole content, you will understand what's that all about.

[TimeBits]

How can you not know what Bitcoin is since you joined the forum in 2018 and have many posts and a few merits.

I know what bitcoin is, how blockchain works, but I never heard the term Re-org, Roll back and Re-roll I read them in a article today on the Binance stuff, I guess the CEO wanted to do that? What is that?
I been here since 2010-11 ish. Just a new account. Lost the keys to my old car.

Trying to find on their blog https://www.binance.com/en/blog but i cant find on what you are saying.Can you provide the link? I dont even have the idea about that re-org etc.

Sure.

[TimeBits]

I know what bitcoin is, how blockchain works, but I never heard the term Re-org, Roll back and Re-roll I read them in a article today on the Binance stuff, I guess the CEO wanted to do that? What is that?
I been here since 2010-11 ish. Just a new account. Lost the keys to my old car.

Is this the article you are talking about?

https://www.coindesk.com/binance-may-consider-bitcoin-rollback-following-40-million-hack

If yes then just by reading the whole content, you will understand what's that all about.

No I don`t understand, how they would not want to do a "re-org", they do need to "re-org" I don`t have links but "re roll or re roll" which is what they meant by "re-org" otherwise why would they not want to re organize after getting majorly owned, it was also mentioned somewhere else in this forum, because clearly the funds are not safu.

[pixie85]

There is no rollback in bitcoin. An exchange do it in their api if they find that somebody is manipulating the market but it's possible only as long as the coins are on their exchange. When someone hacks your account and sells all your coins and they find out about it they can restore your account and nullify the transactions.

Coins that left the exchange cannot be brought back and they can reroll all day long. He must be nuts if he thinks everybody will agree to do a 51 attack because his exchange had bad security and lost money.

[xvids]

You are just posting up without reading. Try to look again above your post.

I deleted that message since it was my fault I missed the OP's answer and base my answer to the title "hey guys I am new to these forum".
I thought it would be help for OP because that thread is informative and helpful for newbies.
But base on OP's statement he/she was already in crypto way back longer than I am so he/she doesn't need it anymore .

No I don`t understand, how they would not want to do a "re-org", they do need to "re-org" I don`t have links but "re roll or re roll" which is what they meant by "re-org" otherwise why would they not want to re organize after getting majorly owned, it was also mentioned somewhere else in this forum, because clearly the funds are not safu.

I think because they want to operate as soon as possible and re organizing would take some time.
Which would affect the users .
But the event is already making some effect on the user if I am not mistaken the accounts that has been hacked have their funds frozen.
I think they just want to lessen the fear from those who are un affected and want to show that they could continue to work.

[odolvlobo]

A "re-org" simply means switching to a different (though equally valid) version of the block chain. "Roll-back" is another word for "undo". I have never heard the term "re-roll".

In general, there are occasional splits (or "branches") in the block chain. This happens when two miners mine a block at about the same time. The two miners publish their blocks, and because miners generally adopt the first block they receive, some miners adopt one block and other miners adopt the other block.

The rule is that the "longest" chain is the "main" chain. In this case, both versions of the chain are the same length, but a miner will mine a block on one of the branches at some point, making it the longest chain. All of the miners that were mining on the other branch must switch to the longest chain. This switch is called a "re-org".

Re-orgs happen occasionally, and are not a big deal if it only involves one or two blocks. In the Binance case, miners would create a branch of the block chain containing all of the transactions since the hacker's transaction, but excluding the hacker's transaction. If enough miners jumped on board, the new branch would become the longest chain in a day or two. The re-org would be huge (more than 100 blocks) and would be very disruptive.

Normally, a large re-org could never happen because it would cost miners a fortune to re-do that many blocks. However, Binance could pay for the re-org by giving miners the stolen 7000 BTC (70 BTC per block vs. 12.5 BTC per block).

[TimeBits]

A "re-org" simply means switching to a different (though equally valid) version of the block chain. "Roll-back" is another word for "undo". I have never heard the term "re-roll".

In general, there are occasional splits (or "branches") in the block chain. This happens when two miners mine a block at about the same time. Each miner publishes their block and some miners adopt one block (block A) and other miners adopt the other block (block B).

The rule is that the "longest" chain is the "main" chain. In this case, both versions of the chain are the same length, but at some point, a miner will mine a block on one of the branches, making it the longest chain. At that point, all of the miners that were mining on the other branch must switch to the longest chain. This switch is called a "re-org".

Re-orgs happen occasionally, and are not a big deal if it only involves one or two blocks. In the Binance case, miners would create a branch of the block chain containing all of the transactions since the hacker's transaction, but excluding the hacker's transaction. If enough miners jumped on board, the new branch would become the longest chain. The re-org would be huge (100 or more blocks) and would be very disruptive.

Normally, a large re-org could never happen because it would cost miners a fortune to re-do that many blocks. However, Binance could pay for the re-org by giving miners the stolen 7000 BTC (70 BTC per block vs. 12.5 BTC per block).

re·org
/ˈrēˌôrɡ,rēˈôrɡ/
informal
noun
noun: reorg; plural noun: reorgs

    1.
    a reorganization.

verb
verb: reorg; 3rd person present: reorgs; gerund or present participle: reorging; past tense: reorged; past participle: reorged

    1.
    reorganize.
    "in less than a year, we've been reorged three times"

They do not want to consider reorganizing, "we decided NOT to pursue the re-org approach", no the 51% of the miners decide that. What they meant was roll-back or re-roll (otherwise their statements make no sense).  How you going to ask for 51% of the hashing power LOL. 81% of it is in china.

[TimeBits]

Normally, a large re-org could never happen because it would cost miners a fortune to re-do that many blocks. However, Binance could pay for the re-org by giving miners the stolen 7000 BTC (70 BTC per block vs. 12.5 BTC per block).

It can`t happen because you can`t force the miners to leave whatever chain that they want to follow, unless you are 51% of them.

Oh nice, So we give 7000 btc to miners to destroy our planet some more ^_^ and the people can buy them back from the miners again ^_^

[TimeBits]

So let me get this straight

A re-org to them, is to go back in time and fork the blockchain pretty much? So everyone else doing transactions on the network can suck it, because of their mistake? What about all the merchants who sold stuff during that time and the people that bought items and all the other transactions going on in the network?

"we decided NOT to pursue the re-org approach" how do you even think that is a approach in the first place? I mean it is (it should not be, unless all the users on the network agree, not the miners.) but it is not for Binance to say.

[hatshepsut93]

So let me get this straight

A re-org to them, is to go back in time and fork the blockchain pretty much? So everyone else doing transactions on the network can suck it, because of their mistake? What about all the merchants who sold stuff during that time and the people that bought items and all the other transactions going on in the network?

"we decided NOT to pursue the re-org approach" how do you even think that is a approach in the first place? I mean it is (it should not be, unless all the users on the network agree, not the miners.) but it is not for Binance to say.

You are correct, and this is one of the reasons why miners would never do it. The other is that miners would have to give up all the rewards they've earned after the target block. Basically doing a re-org, aka 51% attack would be suicide for miners, they'd destroy confidence in Bitcoin which would tank the price and make mining less profitable for long periods of time, all because some stupid exchange can't keep their funds safu.

[d5000]

So everyone else doing transactions on the network can suck it, because of their mistake? What about all the merchants who sold stuff during that time and the people that bought items and all the other transactions going on in the network?

No, this is (mostly) incorrect. Most transactions won't be affected. The miners could simply collect them from the current blocks and include them in new blocks.

The only coins that would be affected are those stolen by the hacker. I don't know if the hacker has moved these coins afterwards, and if he was able to exchange them for fiat or goods/services. In this case, the merchants that sold something to the hacker, and those merchants that sold something involving his coins, would be affected because the transactions leading to the trade would "never had happened".

Nevertheless, a re-org of that dimension would be catastrophic for Bitcoin. It's essentially what they did at Ethereum after the DAO disaster, and would be the end of the "transactions are not reversible" paradigm.

[pooya87]

don't waste your time with what Binance is saying these days. they were careless, they got hacked, lost millions of dollars worth of bitcoin and it is over. there is no UNDO button in bitcoin and there never will be because bitcoin is decentralized and immutable with irreversible transactions and nobody will ever accept this type of roll-back they are begging for these days like the drowning man they are clinging to anything they can.

[denzkilim]

How can you not know what Bitcoin is since you joined the forum in 2018 and have many posts and a few merits.

I know what bitcoin is, how blockchain works, but I never heard the term Re-org, Roll back and Re-roll I read them in a article today on the Binance stuff, I guess the CEO wanted to do that? What is that?
I been here since 2010-11 ish. Just a new account. Lost the keys to my old car.

Trying to find on their blog https://www.binance.com/en/blog but i cant find on what you are saying.Can you provide the link? I dont even have the idea about that re-org etc.

Sure.

Is that re-org = reorganize? the only thing that comes up to my mind is they would reorganize their system and as they have stated those hackers revealed the weak spots of their platform. I don't know if the hacking event that occurs is true or just staged for more publicity over the crypto space but there is one thing I remember, whenever there is a malicious movement of funds on the Binance trading platform they would immediately stop any kinds of transactions and withdrawals are stopped but these hackers have successfully penetrated their system without them noticing the mysterious movement of funds and that's a big question for me.

don't waste your time with what Binance is saying these days. they were careless, they got hacked, lost millions of dollars worth of bitcoin and it is over. there is no UNDO button in bitcoin and there never will be because bitcoin is decentralized and immutable with irreversible transactions and nobody will ever accept this type of roll-back they are begging for these days like the drowning man they are clinging to anything they can.

That's correct there's nothing they can do to get back the hacked Bitcoin unless they trace those thieves who stole it but it needs time and manpower to trace it, especially if those hackers are really clever.

[figmentofmyass]

A re-org to them, is to go back in time and fork the blockchain pretty much? So everyone else doing transactions on the network can suck it, because of their mistake? What about all the merchants who sold stuff during that time and the people that bought items and all the other transactions going on in the network?

those transactions would be included on the reorged blockchain.

"we decided NOT to pursue the re-org approach" how do you even think that is a approach in the first place? I mean it is (it should not be, unless all the users on the network agree, not the miners.) but it is not for Binance to say.

miners and services are free to do what they will as rational actors. a reorg is 100% compatible with the bitcoin protocol, so while i don't like idea of a mutable blockchain, i was never so naive to believe it was immutable. the honesty of miners is only ensured by rational economic incentive---block rewards. if you offer miners a large enough economic incentive to mine dishonestly, well, don't be surprised if they take the offer.

i think people are getting too hung up on the idea of immutability. bitcoin is not immutable.

Nevertheless, a re-org of that dimension would be catastrophic for Bitcoin. It's essentially what they did at Ethereum after the DAO disaster, and would be the end of the "transactions are not reversible" paradigm.

people keep raising this ethical dilemma. maybe i'm crazy, but i see it differently. it's nothing like the DAO fork, which was a hard fork that broke rules of the original blockchain. a reorg, by comparison, is 100% compatible with bitcoin.

as i see it, we should always assume miners will double spend or otherwise attack the network if doing so will net more BTC than honest mining. to me, this would be just another blockchain reorganization.

i think people are getting too hung up on ethical principles which are completely out of their control. bitcoin is permissionless and free markets are free. like it or not, miners are not securing the chain out of the goodness of their hearts. it's all about the benjamins.

reorg or not, the outcome would be good for bitcoin. because bitcoin simply is.

[CryptoBry]

Normally, a large re-org could never happen because it would cost miners a fortune to re-do that many blocks. However, Binance could pay for the re-org by giving miners the stolen 7000 BTC (70 BTC per block vs. 12.5 BTC per block).

This can be a good option though I am doubting if this can be done now just for the sake of Binance. Maybe this can be the best time that the whole industry talk about this so that we are open for the possibility of finding solutions in case of a big hack. I am looking forward to the time when there is a set of rules and standards in dealing with this menace of the cryptocurrency industry as this will not be the last time that hackers can successfully get in and steal coins from a big exchange. In fact, am sure that with the money that hackers now have they are planning for more bigger quests soon.

[xtraelv]

Normally, a large re-org could never happen because it would cost miners a fortune to re-do that many blocks. However, Binance could pay for the re-org by giving miners the stolen 7000 BTC (70 BTC per block vs. 12.5 BTC per block).

This can be a good option though I am doubting if this can be done now just for the sake of Binance. Maybe this can be the best time that the whole industry talk about this so that we are open for the possibility of finding solutions in case of a big hack. I am looking forward to the time when there is a set of rules and standards in dealing with this menace of the cryptocurrency industry as this will not be the last time that hackers can successfully get in and steal coins from a big exchange. In fact, am sure that with the money that hackers now have they are planning for more bigger quests soon.

It is not a good idea at all. It would prove that Binance is so big that it can manipulate bitcoin and can control bitcoin. It is more likely that it would just result in two competing chains  which would split the hashrate, reduce the market cap (split the current market cap between two competing coins & maybe even lose total market cap).

The hacker would still own the coins on the "other chain". It has already been done with Ethereum and Ethereum classic. (Forked / rolled back to recover the DAO stolen funds.)

It has a fractured split community and two coins. Ethereum initially lost a lot of market cap. It would probably be cheaper for every bitcoin holder to donate a % of their bitcoin rather than slaughter the bitcoin price.

With the bitcoin community it could also result in the miners initially going for the reward and then later switching back to the old chain.

It would then become known as the privatized Binance chain. CZ realised the consequences of such an action and wisely dismissed it.