What if you checkpoint every block ?

[Bitcoin Oz]

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.

[smoothie]

What if the attacker is doing lock ins too?

[Etlase2]

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]

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]

What if the attacker is doing lock ins too?

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

[Bitcoin Oz]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

[davout]

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

[Bitcoin Oz]

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

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 

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]

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

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 

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 Oz]

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

[Bitcoin Oz]

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

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 

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 

[k9quaint]

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

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 

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 

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