Transaction Finality on Bitcoin

[Wind_FURY]

Newbies, Nothing at Stake is NOT a myth. It's a known theoretical weakness in POS. In POS, a bad actor will not lose anything if he/she misbehaves, by signing in each and every fork. In fact, it encourages them to sign each and every fork because there are no costs.

Did you write a multistaking wallet,
did you ask Gmax to write you one?

Would it make any difference to anyone if there was a multistaking wallet.

Answer is no.

Confused_Fury, you know nothing.  

Nothing at Stake Myth, is a Nothing to Gain.

Seven years since Gmax made up that nonsense and no one can even write a mutistaking client, how fucking lame are you.

It is a Myth!

Now what is a fact, is the top 4 bitcoin mining pools could collude at any time and 51% attack bitcoin, for years now.
But the difference between facts & myths has never been your strong suit.

Attack the debate, read my post and explain how the theory can't be put into practice? A need for a "multi-stake client"? Is that term your own invention? I believe so.

On the topic of finality, POS requires/or WILL require checkpoints.

[1715215014]

1715215014

[1715215014]

1715215014

[1715215014]

1715215014

[1715215014]

1715215014

[1715215014]

1715215014

[Abiky]

You are right when you said [The more confirmations a transaction has, the lesser the probability of "rollbacks" will be.]

You are wrong when you said [transactions made on PoW blockchains are considered as "final" while that's not the case with PoS blockchains (someone correct me if I'm wrong)]

Either PoS or PoW the more confirmations the lesser the probability of "rollbacks.

The amount of energy spent does not matter, because the Top 4 mining Pools are all that is standing between bitcoin and a 51% attack,
whether the amount of energy increases 100X or decreases 1000X, as long as those top 4 mining pools control at least 51%, they are all the real security bitcoin has.  Note it has been that way for years now.

Your quest for transaction finality is only available after a checkpoint.
Nothing before a checkpoint can be altered.

Some coins such as peercoin use a checkpoint server, many don't like this as it puts too much power in the hands of a single individual.

Some coins such as bitcoin used to use program coded checkpoints to ensure hard forks were protected.
Out of stupidity , Bitcoin quit using coded checkpoints a few years ago.

Other coins such a Black coin use a rolling checkpoints, so after 500 blocks have past, transactions are final as the clients automatically refuse any reorgs over 500 blocks old.

* Note: PoS coins have a dormancy period after staking, making a sustained 51% attacks highly unlikely.*
* PoW Mining Pools have no dormancy period and can achieve a sustained 51% attack easier.*

As far as your personal search for finality ,
only a checkpoint guarantees it, so coded checkpoints or rolling checkpoints are the only ways to accomplish it.
Coded Checkpoints are added by the developer and usually a week or two old block is chosen.
Rolling Checkpoints are completely decentralized and happen based on the number of confirmations.

FYI:
Bitcoin Devs will never re add checkpoints of any kind , they think it makes them look weak. 

FYI2:
https://bitcoinmagazine.com/articles/bitcoin-network-shaken-by-blockchain-fork-1363144448

On March 12th, 2013: 24 blocks / 6 hours of Bitcoin mining was rewritten due to a problem with a version upgrade.
In August 2010, there was a 53 block reorg in bitcoin due to an bug.

FYI3:
If the Majority of Miners or Stakers & users agreed, any coin can have it's blockchain overwritten/ altered,
it is after all secured by code and as such if the majority agree to modify the code anything can be changed.
That is a democracy.

I still have a lot to learn about how "transaction finality" works on both consensus algorithms (PoW and PoS). For once, I've thought that the energy spent on PoW chains like Bitcoin and Ethereum, meant that transactions were considered as final (unlike PoS chains of today). Thankfully, you've helped me understand this better after some confusion related to the subject. I can now see why Ethereum is after "transaction finality" with its Casper PoS upgrade. Smart contracts need a truly immutable blockchain where transactions are considered as final no matter what. Those who try to cheat the system will get penalized. It's a clever idea from the ETH dev team, which could serve as a great example for Bitcoin and other altcoins.

While I don't like coded checkpoints because of their centralization, the latter option (rolling checkpoints) seem to be a better solution for maintaining transaction finality on the Bitcoin blockchain. I'm surprised that BTC devs are not interested in doing something like this, in order to make Bitcoin as immutable as possible. The current hashrate distribution on mining pools owned by Bitmain/China could put the blockchain at risk in the long term. After all, they already control 51% of the network's hashrate. There are solutions to tackle this problem, though. Betterhash, and Stratum V2 aim to make mining more decentralized. With a decentralized PoW consensus and rolling checkpoints, you could rest assured that Bitcoin's transaction history will remain unalterable for the foreseeable future.

But I guess that, developers are mostly interested in scaling the BTC blockchain than anything else. Of course, that's also important for the mainstream adoption of Bitcoin. But I believe that, security and reliability goes above anything else. As long as there's no threat of a 51% attack or block reorg, developers wouldn't care more or less implementing a mechanism that would make transactions final no matter what.

it is not that complicated to know. it is a matter of cryptography. in order to reverse a transaction that is already confirmed you have to mine the same block. but the problem is that you have to first have a huge hashrate that allows you to mine that block within reasonable time. lets say it is block #100, while you are mining that again the rest of the world is mining #101 and by the time you find #100 the rest of the world is on #102 now you are 2 blocks behind and the chain you have is a shorter one with less work that is rejected.

Yes. That's the way it works, according to the Bitcoin whitepaper. The longest running chain is the one that's considered as valid among all participants. We could say that Bitcoin experiences small forks every once in a while because of this. The situation is worse with PoW chains that have huge block sizes (like BCH and BSV). I've seen that Bitcoin SV has experienced a lot of block reorgs lately. In a chain like this, it's hard to think that transactions will ever be considered as "final". Maybe that's why BTC devs decided not to increase the block size in order to maintain Bitcoin as secure as possible. A 1mb block size has worked flawlessly for the Bitcoin blockchain where block reorgs have been quire rare (AFAIK). But I strongly believe that Bitcoin devs should look for ways to implement transaction finality on-chain to maintain the immutability of Bitcoin for the foreseeable future.

[Wind_FURY]

Newbies, Nothing at Stake is NOT a myth. It's a known theoretical weakness in POS. In POS, a bad actor will not lose anything if he/she misbehaves, by signing in each and every fork. In fact, it encourages them to sign each and every fork because there are no costs.

Did you write a multistaking wallet,
did you ask Gmax to write you one?

Would it make any difference to anyone if there was a multistaking wallet.

Answer is no.

Confused_Fury, you know nothing.  

Nothing at Stake Myth, is a Nothing to Gain.

Seven years since Gmax made up that nonsense and no one can even write a mutistaking client, how fucking lame are you.

It is a Myth!

Now what is a fact, is the top 4 bitcoin mining pools could collude at any time and 51% attack bitcoin, for years now.
But the difference between facts & myths has never been your strong suit.

Attack the debate, read my post and explain how the theory can't be put into practice? A need for a "multi-stake client"? Is that term your own invention? I believe so.

On the topic of finality, POS requires/or WILL require checkpoints.

Mutistaking client or you can't even waste your time on the bullshit myth by gmax.
https://medium.com/coinmonks/understanding-proof-of-stake-the-nothing-at-stake-theory-1f0d71bc027

It assumes that validators went out of their way to either modify their validation software or download software that someone else modified
Standard validation software will not come with the ability to mine on all forks.
This is because standard software comes with an internal logic for choosing a “true” fork when a fork occurs.

Is that all? That's the prevention of stakers from signing in each and every fork, at no costs? Good luck with POS finality.

FYI:
To show everyone how Confused the N@S Myth believers are.
https://medium.com/coinmonks/understanding-proof-of-stake-the-nothing-at-stake-theory-1f0d71bc027

Second, validators are expected to build on every fork because it is theorized that it is in their financial self-interest to do so.
If validators mine on both (or more) chains, they will collect transaction fees on whichever fork ends up winning.
If validators stake on every fork, this will be disruptive to consensus at minimum and could leave the network more vulnerable to double spend attacks.

See N@S Myth Believers think they can collect transactions fees on whichever fork ends up winning.
And that is why they are a bunch of fucking idiots.  

Proof of Stake Coins such as ZEIT,  BURN ALL TRANSACTIONS FEES!!!  

Running a Multistaking Client running Multiple Forks is a monumental waste of anyone's time.

The N@S Myth is literally a Nothing to Gain Reality with a properly designed PoS system.  

Zeit removed the fees? What are the incentives to stake, and to secure the network? That's not a network for a hostile environment.

[pooya87]

~
Zeit removed the fees? What are the incentives to stake, and to secure the network? That's not a network for a hostile environment.

to attack a network and put it to test there has to be incentives, when that network is garbage and the reward is so small that it doesn't even cover the cost of time spent looking into the garbage then it will never be attacked and it could create the illusion of being safe just because it hasn't been attacked.

[Wind_FURY]

~
Zeit removed the fees? What are the incentives to stake, and to secure the network? That's not a network for a hostile environment.

to attack a network and put it to test there has to be incentives, when that network is garbage and the reward is so small that it doesn't even cover the cost of time spent looking into the garbage then it will never be attacked and it could create the illusion of being safe just because it hasn't been attacked.

Or their network is centralized to several stakers/validators who understand each other, that it's also not worth attacking. Buying up their cryptocurrency would be giving them a favor. Hahaha.

[Wind_FURY]

~
Zeit removed the fees? What are the incentives to stake, and to secure the network? That's not a network for a hostile environment.

to attack a network and put it to test there has to be incentives, when that network is garbage and the reward is so small that it doesn't even cover the cost of time spent looking into the garbage then it will never be attacked and it could create the illusion of being safe just because it hasn't been attacked.

Wow, It is like you two , shared a stupid moment together.
  (It is wonder you two know how to breathe.)

1. ZEIT burns transaction fees, it still earn STAKING REWARDs.

 

OK, then we are back to the debate that stakers are incentivized to sign each, and every fork, because it costs them nothing. Plus if the only "challenge" to start doing it is modifying the software to enable signing each, and every fork, then good luck to finality in POS.

[DooMAD]

It's worth pointing out that we're giving someone ample opportunity to plug their coin, when such blatant advertising should be happening in the altcoin board.  If we're not going to steer the conversation back towards Bitcoin, I'd call for this topic to be locked/moved.

The question as to why Bitcoin no longer uses checkpoints is answered rather well here.  I hope this clears up any confusion some people might be having.

[alani123]

Newbies, Nothing at Stake is NOT a myth. It's a known theoretical weakness in POS. In POS, a bad actor will not lose anything if he/she misbehaves, by signing in each and every fork. In fact, it encourages them to sign each and every fork because there are no costs.

Did you write a multistaking wallet,
did you ask Gmax to write you one?

Would it make any difference to anyone if there was a multistaking wallet.

Answer is no.

Confused_Fury, you know nothing.  

Nothing at Stake Myth, is a Nothing to Gain.

Seven years since Gmax made up that nonsense and no one can even write a mutistaking client, how fucking lame are you.

It is a Myth!

Now what is a fact, is the top 4 bitcoin mining pools could collude at any time and 51% attack bitcoin, for years now.
But the difference between facts & myths has never been your strong suit.

The fact that nobody has done this doesn't mean that it can't be done. Right now there are couldwith such a weak PoW network that it would cost a few bucks to attack them with a 51% attack. See:https://www.crypto51.app/

Is anybody attacking them? Maybe. You and I don't care to even look into it most probably, but that doesn't mean it's not happening.
Is it feasible to attack them? Most certainly yes and it has been done in the past. Goldcoin is a good example.

Theoretical attacks deserve as much attention, the fact that they remain in theory doesn't mean they aren't feasibe and that they don't pose as weaknesses of consensus algorithms.

[DooMAD]

I suggest you tell them to quit spreading nonsense and I won't have to use detailed examples to explain to them why they were wrong.

The problem there is, I don't think you'll be able to convince me that they are wrong while you have such fundamental misconceptions over the supposed importance of checkpoints.  Your "detailed examples" are based on a flawed premise.  If you ever reach a better understanding of the matter, perhaps I'll reconsider.

[alani123]

FYI:
You got to luv how bitcoiners are all concerned with theoretical attacks on a Proof of Stake coin,
but totally are unconcerned with the reality that the top 4 mining pools could 51% attack the main Proof of Waste coin at a moment notice,
and their only real comment, is miners will switch pools after the attack.
* Note after the attack the damage is already done. *

Boy, there has been so much talk and work done to actually improve bitcoin's infrastructure that we could go on talking for ages. The man-hours of development done to improve bitcoin probably are more than the working hours you and I will both put out in our lifetimes. Bitcoiners DO take the theoretical attacks that could have been performed on bitcoin seriously. Maybe too seriously. To an extent that top developers put out extra effort to improve even marginal metrics of performance for bitcoin. At levels that further improvement requires expertise we'd have a hard time imagining.

Take bitcoin's network's infrastructure as an example. Sybil attacks, (which could aid in making the theoretical selfish mining attack more feasible), have become more likely because bitcoin devs managed to improve peering and propagation in the network, taking propagation down from dozens of seconds to a handful.

And this isn't a bitcoiner-altcoiner issue...  Advances in cryptocurerncy technology continue to be beneficial for the entire space. That's why we have to study even theoretical attacks carefully instead of being dismissive.

[DooMAD]

Satoshi approved of coded checkpoints, do you dumbmad now claim to be smarter than your savior Satoshi.  

What you're presenting here is an appeal to authority logical fallacy (likely because you're fresh out of arguments).  Just because satoshi implemented a particular feature, it does not mean that feature can't be removed later if it no longer serves a purpose.  In the fledgling early years, checkpoints made sense, but as Bitcoin has evolved and grown, the decidedly limited protection they offer has simply made them redundant.  Bitcoin handles far too much wealth on a daily basis to revert back to an arbitrary earlier point in time.

I wouldn't claim to be smarter than satoshi, but I would proclaim you to be dumber than a box of rocks.

[DooMAD]

a simple checkpoint ensured no 51% attack could revert any data before the checkpoint.

Exactly.  Which would be of zero consolation to anyone who received BTC after the checkpoint.  So, despite having literally just explained the primary weakness yourself, you somehow still can't see the problem?  

[Wind_FURY]

The troll could not accept a simple fact. That transaction finality is always in question in POS, because stakers are incentivized to sign in each, and every fork, because it costs NOTHING.

He will post nothing a lot of word-salad, with a lot of name-calling.

[hulla]

Base on my research and the numbers of transaction confirmation most crypto exchange site usually require for transaction finality. I believe bitcoin transaction can be considered successful after 3 confirmation, ETH is 12-25 confirmations.

Yes, just need 7.6 billion confirmations. (One from each human on earth)

This kind of message is not welcome on this forum and i will advise you to be more careful next to avoid been penalize by the forum moderator.

[pooya87]

~

i'm surprised that you still haven't put the Z shill on ignore, i keep seeing his comments in your quotes
in any case, if anyone thinks their beloved altcoin that they keep advertising is strong against attacks can put their money where their mouth is. put up a reward like half a bitcoin in a trusted escrow for anybody who pulls a successful attack on that altcoin and see how it fairs then...

[Wind_FURY]

~

i'm surprised that you still haven't put the Z shill on ignore, i keep seeing his comments in your quotes
in any case, if anyone thinks their beloved altcoin that they keep advertising is strong against attacks can put their money where their mouth is. put up a reward like half a bitcoin in a trusted escrow for anybody who pulls a successful attack on that altcoin and see how it fairs then...

I have the troll back on ignore. I thought he became reasonable. Haha.

Plus why would they put up a reward? They know POS is flawed. No expended energy, no costs, then dishonest activity that could take place, will take place. Lastly, it has no finality like Bitcoin's transaction finality.

[Docnaster]

As I understand, transactions are only as final as the network is secure.

The deeper a transaction is rooted in the blockchain, the more difficult it is to modify, since it would require more work to achieve.

This is because a large number of blocks would need to be undone by the attacker. Because of this, surface level blocks (e.g. ones that were just finalized) are more vulnerable to a majority attack, while a more sustained attack might be able to alter blocks from a few hours ago. Most platforms bank on the fact that such an attack would be thwarted well before older transactions are modified.

[Baoo]

As I have known there are  three basics confirmations for most types of transactions , and of course they are enough for finishing any transfer of money. Fortunately, the confirmations does not last long especially when you put the appropriate value of fees. That is the advantage of Blockchain on  tranferts of banks, there is huge difference between them. Using Btc wallets will make your money  safe and secure and without exploitation  through the high value of taxes

[Google+]

As I have known there are  three basics confirmations for most types of transactions , and of course they are enough for finishing any transfer of money. Fortunately, the confirmations does not last long especially when you put the appropriate value of fees. That is the advantage of Blockchain on  tranferts of banks, there is huge difference between them. Using Btc wallets will make your money  safe and secure and without exploitation  through the high value of taxes

the amount of the transaction confirmation fee will be by entering a very high nominal shipping fee, it will indeed make shipping fast but you should know that when the price of bitcoin rises, the exchange shipping fee will be expensive, bitcoin transactions will never be taxed, they only cut costs shipping for transaction fees from the central wallet.

[Assface16678]

I once too became curious about how many confirmation is needed in order to completely verify a transaction, and why does it needs to have more than 2 confirmation just to completely made a transaction successful. With this regard, I have came up to conclusion that the transaction is quite more secured based from the number of confirmation it gets from the miners.

Most of the time, the transactions I've created is already been processed with just at least 3 confirmation on the network.

One of the most substantial improvements today is with the use of bitcoin, and now many people getting more included in this world because they know the potential of this coin to make a lot of income for their investment. Also, many people would like to amend with the use of crypto as transaction fee because they know it is faster than the traditional way.

In terms of having security, it depends on the platform because most of the platforms today are using just only one verification, and after that, it is now completed. Only a few platforms are supporting the use of two-way authentication to make sure there is no problem in the transaction and also it is secured.