Bitcoin Forum
October 21, 2019, 11:19:59 AM *
News: Latest Bitcoin Core release: 0.18.1 [Torrent]
 
   Home   Help Search Login Register More  
Pages: [1]
  Print  
Author Topic: What if you checkpoint every block ?  (Read 1183 times)
Bitcoin Oz
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 686
Merit: 500


Wat


View Profile WWW
July 28, 2012, 06:02:24 AM
 #1

If the lead developer can checkpoint the bitcoin or litecoin block chain what is the real difference with them doing it every block or every other block ?

If a new chain came out and the developer did this from the genesis block how can anyone argue it is "centralised" and then turn around and claim bitcoin isnt when it uses exactly the same process ?

tldr the only difference is the frequency of the locks.

It might be a good way to get that chain through the initial period when its in danger of a 51% attack.

Discuss.

"Bitcoin: mining our own business since 2009" -- Pieter Wuille
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
1571656799
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1571656799

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1571656799
Reply with quote  #2

1571656799
Report to moderator
1571656799
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1571656799

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1571656799
Reply with quote  #2

1571656799
Report to moderator
smoothie
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2128
Merit: 1018


LEALANA Monero Physical Silver Coins


View Profile
July 28, 2012, 06:08:21 AM
 #2

What if the attacker is doing lock ins too?

███████████████████████████████████████

            ,╓p@@███████@╗╖,           
        ,p████████████████████N,       
      d█████████████████████████b     
    d██████████████████████████████æ   
  ,████²█████████████████████████████, 
 ,█████  ╙████████████████████╨  █████y
 ██████    `████████████████`    ██████
║██████       Ñ███████████`      ███████
███████         ╩██████Ñ         ███████
███████    ▐▄     ²██╩     a▌    ███████
╢██████    ▐▓█▄          ▄█▓▌    ███████
 ██████    ▐▓▓▓▓▌,     ▄█▓▓▓▌    ██████─
           ▐▓▓▓▓▓▓█,,▄▓▓▓▓▓▓▌          
           ▐▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▌          
    ▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓─  
     ²▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓╩    
        ▀▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▀       
           ²▀▀▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▀▀`          
                   ²²²                 
███████████████████████████████████████

. ★☆ WWW.LEALANA.COM        My PGP fingerprint is A764D833.                  History of Monero development Visualization ★☆ .
LEALANA  PHYSICAL MONERO COINS 999 FINE SILVER.
 
gweedo
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1274
Merit: 1000


View Profile
July 28, 2012, 06:09:58 AM
 #3

wouldn't this miss a lot of bitcoins, and they would be come lost? The point of a checkpoint is that it holds all information before it, so any coins not in it would be lost, I think. IDK try it
Etlase2
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 798
Merit: 1000


View Profile
July 28, 2012, 06:18:52 AM
 #4

I believe Red argued this very point in one of the encoin threads--that what the developers have done is essentially a form of centralization. But it is possible for a fork to exist permanently if some people decide that what the developers decide is incorrect, so it isn't really an issue. Although I believe they use a block like 1,000 blocks in the past so there isn't much discussion on those blocks. I could be wrong on that though.

RyNinDaCleM
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2394
Merit: 1008


Legen -wait for it- dary


View Profile
July 28, 2012, 06:20:40 AM
 #5

This may be possible, however you would want to replace the checkpoint before it to prevent bloat, since it would have to be written to the block chain. This would be similar to windowz system restore. Like a snapshot of the current state of the block chain. I think you could get away with one per re-target.

Bitcoin Oz
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 686
Merit: 500


Wat


View Profile WWW
July 28, 2012, 06:36:00 AM
 #6

What if the attacker is doing lock ins too?

 The only way it would work is if the attacker is also the lead developer  Smiley

Bitcoin Oz
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 686
Merit: 500


Wat


View Profile WWW
July 28, 2012, 06:41:18 AM
Last edit: July 28, 2012, 07:22:21 PM by Maged
 #7

I believe Red argued this very point in one of the encoin threads--that what the developers have done is essentially a form of centralization. But it is possible for a fork to exist permanently if some people decide that what the developers decide is incorrect, so it isn't really an issue. Although I believe they use a block like 1,000 blocks in the past so there isn't much discussion on those blocks. I could be wrong on that though.

I know there are good reasons why the lock is so far in the past.

RyNinDaCleM
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2394
Merit: 1008


Legen -wait for it- dary


View Profile
July 28, 2012, 06:47:53 AM
 #8

I believe Red argued this very point in one of the encoin threads--that what the developers have done is essentially a form of centralization. But it is possible for a fork to exist permanently if some people decide that what the developers decide is incorrect, so it isn't really an issue. Although I believe they use a block like 1,000 blocks in the past so there isn't much discussion on those blocks. I could be wrong on that though.

I know there are good reasons why the lock is so far in the past.

Just curious! What are these reasons?

Bitcoin Oz
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 686
Merit: 500


Wat


View Profile WWW
July 28, 2012, 07:03:29 AM
 #9

I believe Red argued this very point in one of the encoin threads--that what the developers have done is essentially a form of centralization. But it is possible for a fork to exist permanently if some people decide that what the developers decide is incorrect, so it isn't really an issue. Although I believe they use a block like 1,000 blocks in the past so there isn't much discussion on those blocks. I could be wrong on that though.

I know there are good reasons why the lock is so far in the past.

Just curious! What are these reasons?

It would need to be at > 120 blocks because thats how long it takes for bitcoins to be spendable.

RyNinDaCleM
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2394
Merit: 1008


Legen -wait for it- dary


View Profile
July 28, 2012, 07:27:46 AM
 #10

I believe Red argued this very point in one of the encoin threads--that what the developers have done is essentially a form of centralization. But it is possible for a fork to exist permanently if some people decide that what the developers decide is incorrect, so it isn't really an issue. Although I believe they use a block like 1,000 blocks in the past so there isn't much discussion on those blocks. I could be wrong on that though.

I know there are good reasons why the lock is so far in the past.

Just curious! What are these reasons?

It would need to be at > 120 blocks because thats how long it takes for bitcoins to be spendable.

Hm Makes sense!

killerstorm
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 994
Merit: 1000



View Profile
July 28, 2012, 08:13:30 AM
 #11

The way it works now, developers merely propose a lock and users have to accept it intentionally (by downloading updated software). And they can review and discuss lock before applying it. Thus control is entirely decentralized.

Doing locks more frequently would require doing it automatically, without user's explicit consent. This would make it more centralized.

Centralized/decentralized is more like a spectrum rather than a clear cut.

Maybe users can disable this automatic locking, then they have some control, but to a lower degree.

colored coins proof-of-concept: private currencies, stock/bond p2p exchange

Tips and donations: 16v13Fa9cPmfFzpm9mmbWwAkXY4gyY6uh4
davout
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1372
Merit: 1002


1davout


View Profile WWW
July 28, 2012, 07:06:22 PM
 #12

If the lead developer can checkpoint the bitcoin or litecoin block chain what is the real difference with them doing it every block or every other block ?

[...]

It might be a good way to get that chain through the initial period when its in danger of a 51% attack.

Discuss.
You must be new here, already discussed : https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1647.msg19791#msg19791 Wink

Bitcoin Oz
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 686
Merit: 500


Wat


View Profile WWW
July 29, 2012, 07:28:04 AM
 #13

If the lead developer can checkpoint the bitcoin or litecoin block chain what is the real difference with them doing it every block or every other block ?

[...]

It might be a good way to get that chain through the initial period when its in danger of a 51% attack.

Discuss.
You must be new here, already discussed : https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1647.msg19791#msg19791 Wink

I now understand the guy was right all along. Bitcoin is NOT p2p.

The reason you cant have a fork is because Luke-Jr or BCX or one of the other bitcoin bullies will kill it before it ever gets to threaten the chain which contains their money  Smiley

Even if a better bitcoin comes along they will kill it so claiming that  you can just release a fork is utter bullshit. The lock in will get worse with ASIC because of all the money invested in it.

We can never have a longer chain thats better because satoshi has locked us into the current one forever unless we remove the lock in. And no one will agree to do this because bitcoin "is too big to fail".



k9quaint
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1190
Merit: 1000



View Profile
July 29, 2012, 08:27:13 AM
 #14

If the lead developer can checkpoint the bitcoin or litecoin block chain what is the real difference with them doing it every block or every other block ?

[...]

It might be a good way to get that chain through the initial period when its in danger of a 51% attack.

Discuss.
You must be new here, already discussed : https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1647.msg19791#msg19791 Wink

I now understand the guy was right all along. Bitcoin is NOT p2p.

The reason you cant have a fork is because Luke-Jr or BCX or one of the other bitcoin bullies will kill it before it ever gets to threaten the chain which contains their money  Smiley

Even if a better bitcoin comes along they will kill it so claiming that  you can just release a fork is utter bullshit. The lock in will get worse with ASIC because of all the money invested in it.

We can never have a longer chain thats better because satoshi has locked us into the current one forever unless we remove the lock in. And no one will agree to do this because bitcoin "is too big to fail".


So you can stop worrying about 51% attacks.

Bitcoin is backed by the full faith and credit of YouTube comments.
Bitcoin Oz
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 686
Merit: 500


Wat


View Profile WWW
July 29, 2012, 08:27:52 AM
 #15

Interestingly satoshi only went 200 blocks back when he first locked in the chain https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=437.0



Bitcoin Oz
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 686
Merit: 500


Wat


View Profile WWW
July 29, 2012, 08:32:35 AM
 #16

If the lead developer can checkpoint the bitcoin or litecoin block chain what is the real difference with them doing it every block or every other block ?

[...]

It might be a good way to get that chain through the initial period when its in danger of a 51% attack.

Discuss.
You must be new here, already discussed : https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1647.msg19791#msg19791 Wink

I now understand the guy was right all along. Bitcoin is NOT p2p.

The reason you cant have a fork is because Luke-Jr or BCX or one of the other bitcoin bullies will kill it before it ever gets to threaten the chain which contains their money  Smiley

Even if a better bitcoin comes along they will kill it so claiming that  you can just release a fork is utter bullshit. The lock in will get worse with ASIC because of all the money invested in it.

We can never have a longer chain thats better because satoshi has locked us into the current one forever unless we remove the lock in. And no one will agree to do this because bitcoin "is too big to fail".


So you can stop worrying about 51% attacks.


That means its run by a committee  Smiley

k9quaint
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1190
Merit: 1000



View Profile
July 29, 2012, 08:35:42 AM
 #17

If the lead developer can checkpoint the bitcoin or litecoin block chain what is the real difference with them doing it every block or every other block ?

[...]

It might be a good way to get that chain through the initial period when its in danger of a 51% attack.

Discuss.
You must be new here, already discussed : https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1647.msg19791#msg19791 Wink

I now understand the guy was right all along. Bitcoin is NOT p2p.

The reason you cant have a fork is because Luke-Jr or BCX or one of the other bitcoin bullies will kill it before it ever gets to threaten the chain which contains their money  Smiley

Even if a better bitcoin comes along they will kill it so claiming that  you can just release a fork is utter bullshit. The lock in will get worse with ASIC because of all the money invested in it.

We can never have a longer chain thats better because satoshi has locked us into the current one forever unless we remove the lock in. And no one will agree to do this because bitcoin "is too big to fail".


So you can stop worrying about 51% attacks.


That means its run by a committee  Smiley

If you can't read & write code, then someone else is always controlling your computer.

Bitcoin is backed by the full faith and credit of YouTube comments.
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!