Is there a Hidden Secret Code in bitcoin protocol???

[Q7]

Ok basically if you need to do a hardfork, one node needs to tell the rest that says "hey now i got new rule" so you all need to follow my lead. So what if let's say another node that control the majority of the hash rate decides otherwise and ignores it. So in reality that would not be possible right? And how do we get it done if that is the case???

I remember before that sometime back (not sure if the site is still around) that i read that there is a secret handshake that once established it will allow one particular node to dictate the terms and it's well hidden. I mean satoshi must have a backup plan or something right in case they need to immediately apply a patch?

Anyway most of you might say the codes are at github. But question is have we really audited and understand every single line?

[1715089122]

1715089122

[1715089122]

1715089122

[1715089122]

1715089122

[1715089122]

1715089122

[1715089122]

1715089122

[e1ghtSpace]

Ok basically if you need to do a hardfork, one node needs to tell the rest that says "hey now i got new rule" so you all need to follow my lead.

Since when was this the case?

[548845]

Ok basically if you need to do a hardfork, one node needs to tell the rest that says "hey now i got new rule" so you all need to follow my lead.

Since when was this the case?

Ever since there was the need for a starting point maybe?

Please don't get me wrong, I am NOT the one to answer your question on the specific subject however I am inclined to believe that everything has a starting point.

Also, I am guessing that the node in discussion here is Gavin.
He is the one that holds the key, so I am guessing his node will be the one all other nodes trust first.
AGAIN, I am not the one to answer this question. I am just speculating here.

I am sure that someone with more knowledge on the subject can help you better.

[rz20]

If there is not consensus by the network a new rule cant be made.

[RocketSingh]

Ok basically if you need to do a hardfork, one node needs to tell the rest that says "hey now i got new rule" so you all need to follow my lead. So what if let's say another node that control the majority of the hash rate decides otherwise and ignores it. So in reality that would not be possible right? And how do we get it done if that is the case???

I remember before that sometime back (not sure if the site is still around) that i read that there is a secret handshake that once established it will allow one particular node to dictate the terms and it's well hidden. I mean satoshi must have a backup plan or something right in case they need to immediately apply a patch?

Anyway most of you might say the codes are at github. But question is have we really audited and understand every single line?

If a hard fork is required, that has to be agreed upon by majority of nodes. If they dont, the hard fork will lead to an alt coin ...simple.

p.s. There is no secret key. We are not playing Harry Potter here and Satoshi is not Dumbledore.

[Q7]

Ok basically if you need to do a hardfork, one node needs to tell the rest that says "hey now i got new rule" so you all need to follow my lead.

Since when was this the case?

Ever since there was the need for a starting point maybe?

Please don't get me wrong, I am NOT the one to answer your question on the specific subject however I am inclined to believe that everything has a starting point.

Also, I am guessing that the node in discussion here is Gavin.
He is the one that holds the key, so I am guessing his node will be the one all other nodes trust first.
AGAIN, I am not the one to answer this question. I am just speculating here.

I am sure that someone with more knowledge on the subject can help you better.

Exactly that is what I meant to say. There must be a starting point. If the majority controls the hash rate, you can't just come up and say now I have a new rule in place and it needs to be implemented. Take for example if the current block size is 250kb and a hard fork is required to change it to 1mb for example, how would that be made valid??

And that is where the speculation on a hidden secret code comes about. It's like a passphare that gives authority to one single node to dictate the terms.

[OnkelPaul]

Exactly that is what I meant to say. There must be a starting point. If the majority controls the hash rate, you can't just come up and say now I have a new rule in place and it needs to be implemented. Take for example if the current block size is 250kb and a hard fork is required to change it to 1mb for example, how would that be made valid??

And that is where the speculation on a hidden secret code comes about. It's like a passphare that gives authority to one single node to dictate the terms.

Just because you don't know how something works does not mean that you can create a conspiracy theory out of thin air that will somehow be true. There is no secret code.

If developers are under the impression that some change in the protocol is needed, they'd first discuss it and then propose it to the community. If there is some kind of consensus (for example, if a majority of mining operations say "yeah let's do it") the change is implemented into bitcoin core and possibly alternative node implementations, typically with a (future) block number after which the change will become active, to give nodes time to update their software. Once the block number has been reached, it depends on whether a majority of miners are actually using the new protocol version. If only some have upgraded, the "fork" will fizzle and fail because the main blockchain continues to adhere to the old protocol. If the majority use the new rules, only those who did not upgrade are left behind and will be unable to mine blocks that are accepted by the rest of the network. In either case, one version of the protocol "wins", and whoever uses the other version has a strong incentive to switch because otherwise he'd be unable to produce valid blocks.

Onkel Paul

[548845]

Exactly that is what I meant to say. There must be a starting point. If the majority controls the hash rate, you can't just come up and say now I have a new rule in place and it needs to be implemented. Take for example if the current block size is 250kb and a hard fork is required to change it to 1mb for example, how would that be made valid??

And that is where the speculation on a hidden secret code comes about. It's like a passphare that gives authority to one single node to dictate the terms.

Just because you don't know how something works does not mean that you can create a conspiracy theory out of thin air that will somehow be true. There is no secret code.

If developers are under the impression that some change in the protocol is needed, they'd first discuss it and then propose it to the community. If there is some kind of consensus (for example, if a majority of mining operations say "yeah let's do it") the change is implemented into bitcoin core and possibly alternative node implementations, typically with a (future) block number after which the change will become active, to give nodes time to update their software. Once the block number has been reached, it depends on whether a majority of miners are actually using the new protocol version. If only some have upgraded, the "fork" will fizzle and fail because the main blockchain continues to adhere to the old protocol. If the majority use the new rules, only those who did not upgrade are left behind and will be unable to mine blocks that are accepted by the rest of the network. In either case, one version of the protocol "wins", and whoever uses the other version has a strong incentive to switch because otherwise he'd be unable to produce valid blocks.

Onkel Paul

^^^ this sounds logical to me.
Thank you for posting this

Onkel Paul may I ask if you know anything about the Safe Mode trigger?
I have just read this post of Satoshi's yesterday and until then I was under the impression that the longest chain always wins.
However, Satoshi clearly states here: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=2228.msg29479#msg29479
That: Safe mode can still be triggered by seeing a longer (greater total PoW) invalid block chain.

That is an old version of Bitcoin. Is the Safe Mode trigger still there?
And how does it work exactly?

Thank you for your time

[Flashman]

p.s. There is no secret key. We are not playing Harry Potter here and Satoshi is not Dumbledore.

Has anyone tried "Sherbet Lemons" ?

[Soros Shorts]

Anyway most of you might say the codes are at github. But question is have we really audited and understand every single line?

Plenty of people have modified the code and compiled their own custom versions of the client. I am sure that most of the bigger pools use their own custom nodes, as would payment processors, exchanges and sites like blockchain.info. I doubt something like this can be hidden for this long.

[Kprawn]

I saw the secret code in the Open source, it pop's up with the message ---> I am Satoshi, your BTCfather  

You cannot hide secret codes in the protocol, it's Open source, for EVERYONE to see and OnkelPaul already explained it best.

The democracy wins, when the mayority decide to use whatever version of the protocol.

 

[Foxpup]

Onkel Paul may I ask if you know anything about the Safe Mode trigger?
I have just read this post of Satoshi's yesterday and until then I was under the impression that the longest chain always wins.
However, Satoshi clearly states here: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=2228.msg29479#msg29479
That: Safe mode can still be triggered by seeing a longer (greater total PoW) invalid block chain.

That is an old version of Bitcoin. Is the Safe Mode trigger still there?
And how does it work exactly?

As I understand, safe mode can currently be triggered in only three ways:

* A reorg more than 6 blocks deep. ("Warning: The network does not appear to fully agree! Some miners appear to be experiencing issues.")
* An invalid chain more than 6 blocks longer than the longest valid one. ("Warning: We do not appear to fully agree with our peers! You may need to upgrade, or other nodes may need to upgrade.")
* Safe mode manually triggered with the -testsafemode option.

"6 blocks" means total work equivalent to 6 blocks at current difficulty; long chains with low difficulty will not trigger safe mode.

In all cases, safe mode can be disabled with the -disablesafemode option (which should never normally be used, as safe mode indicates something is dangerously wrong with the network).

[teukon]

I have just read this post of Satoshi's yesterday and until then I was under the impression that the longest chain always wins.
However, Satoshi clearly states here: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=2228.msg29479#msg29479
That: Safe mode can still be triggered by seeing a longer (greater total PoW) invalid block chain.

That is an old version of Bitcoin. Is the Safe Mode trigger still there?
And how does it work exactly?

Safe Mode is still there, functioning as a warning system.  It was activated, for example, during the March 2013 (BerkeleyDB) hard fork.  It appears that the main function of the mode (aside from alerting users) is to disable sending transactions whenever there appear to be multiple alternative chains with significant PoW (unexpected consensus breakdown or 51% attack) but this only speculation on my part (I'm certainly no core dev).

Here's a little research concerning your link:

Satoshi indeed said that he'd added some DoS controls and removed "safe-mode" alerts at 6.22pm on December's 12th, 2010.

The Github commit: "added some DoS limits, removed safe mode" shows the DoS protections being added as lines 632...649 in main.cpp and the removal of safe mode code in rpc.cpp.  The commit was made at 6.20pm on the same day (hover over the commit date).

At 6.38pm, a second commit: "correction" re-inserts the safe mode.

These elements of the code are still there: "Observe safe mode" and "okSafeMode".

[548845]

@Foxpup and @teukon Thank you very much!

Your answers have been very informative

Much, MUCH appreciated indeed 

[Willisius]

Onkel Paul may I ask if you know anything about the Safe Mode trigger?
I have just read this post of Satoshi's yesterday and until then I was under the impression that the longest chain always wins.
However, Satoshi clearly states here: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=2228.msg29479#msg29479
That: Safe mode can still be triggered by seeing a longer (greater total PoW) invalid block chain.

That is an old version of Bitcoin. Is the Safe Mode trigger still there?
And how does it work exactly?

As I understand, safe mode can currently be triggered in only three ways:

* A reorg more than 6 blocks deep. ("Warning: The network does not appear to fully agree! Some miners appear to be experiencing issues.")
* An invalid chain more than 6 blocks longer than the longest valid one. ("Warning: We do not appear to fully agree with our peers! You may need to upgrade, or other nodes may need to upgrade.")
* Safe mode manually triggered with the -testsafemode option.

"6 blocks" means total work equivalent to 6 blocks at current difficulty; long chains with low difficulty will not trigger safe mode.

In all cases, safe mode can be disabled with the -disablesafemode option (which should never normally be used, as safe mode indicates something is dangerously wrong with the network).

According to the link in 548845's post satoshi removed safe mode in 0.3.19 and mentioned that safe mode was never meant to be a long term feature

[Magicman420]

Im confused with what your saying, so it's possible for someone to hack bitcoin?

[Foxpup]

According to the link in 548845's post satoshi removed safe mode in 0.3.19 and mentioned that safe mode was never meant to be a long term feature

If you actually read the entire sentence, you would see that he was referring only to safe mode being triggered by alert messages. The following sentence explicitly clarifies that safe mode can still be triggered by blockchain irregularities.

[notbatman]

Anyway most of you might say the codes are at github. But question is have we really audited and understand every single line?

Plenty of people have modified the code and compiled their own custom versions of the client. I am sure that most of the bigger pools use their own custom nodes, as would payment processors, exchanges and sites like blockchain.info. I doubt something like this can be hidden for this long.

If I recall correctly empty gox used their own custom wallet.

I saw the secret code in the Open source, it pop's up with the message ---> I am Satoshi, your BTCfather 

You cannot hide secret codes in the protocol, it's Open source, for EVERYONE to see and OnkelPaul already explained it best.

The democracy wins, when the mayority decide to use whatever version of the protocol.

Heartbleed demonstrates that this line of thinking i.e. it's open source somebody would notice is not always in line with what actually happens.

However, with so many building their own custom wallets somebody would have noticed any shenanigans by now.

[notbatman]

There is however a not-so-secret message in the first Bitcoin block relating to the banking bail-out of 2008. Mind you I haven't confirmed the presence of this message myself personally but I believe it's there.

[cyberpinoy]

Anyway most of you might say the codes are at github. But question is have we really audited and understand every single line?

No As you will see 90% of the people on this site as well as involved in Bitcoins know NOTHING, they dont know exactly how a coin is mined, what a hash is, and all this opensource free to use codes are probably not completely investigated.

Truth be known no one cares much either, most people plug in a miner download a program, point it at a pool and they are happy, or buy some coins send the to a gambling site and go back and buy some more, or earn some coins on faucets and blow them any way they can. Only about 10% of the people involverd in Bitcoins actually undestands any of it, the rest are just pawns.