Just talked about it and now i see "a very practical way to do a hardfork" from James:
[Iguana Creator] Bitcoin spinoff fork - how to make a clean fork without any replay attack and no blockchain visible changes (steemit.com)
singularity87
Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.
- Thread starter cypherdoc
- Start date
[Iguana Creator] Bitcoin spinoff fork - how to make a clean fork without any replay attack and no blockchain visible changes (steemit.com)
singularity87
If I were designing a bitcoin wallet suitable for an exchange that wanted to be able to safely trade between forks, here's how I would do it:
The fork in this example is a simple block size limit increase with no other consensus rule changes.
The fork creates not two, but three categories of bitcoins:
Small block coins are any utxos whose history includes at least one generation output on the small block chain after the large block chain has diverged.
Undifferentiated coins are all other utxos.
In order to all the small block and large block coins to be detected, I'd modify the indexing code of the node to track the "most recent origin" for every utxo consisting of the chain height and block hash of the most recent generation output ancestor.
The existing currency symbol the exchange has assigned to Bitcoin would be interpreted as undifferentiated coins. New currency symbols would be created for large block coins and small block coins. No balances would be converted automatically.
Withdrawals of undifferentiated coins are initially broadcast on both chains.
After the exchange has received a deposit of large block coins (small block coins), it then becomes possible to start trading that currency and to allow users to request a withdrawal of their undifferentiated balances as that type of coins. This is accomplished by using the large block coins (small block coins) as inputs to the withdrawal transaction.
If a user wants to internally convert their balance from undifferentiated coins to large or small block coins, they'd be allowed to do so but this would require the exchange to perform an internal on-chain transaction to create the appropriately differentiated utxos.
Throughout the entire process, deposits are credited as the appropriate type based on whether or not they are differentiated.
A bit of attention to detail reveals this talk of a "replay attack" to be nonsense - it only looks like an attack because of the exchanges aren't handling the fork correctly. Reality is more complex than "everybody automatically doubles their coins after a fork".
PS: as far as I know the strategy I described doesn't work in Ethereum because their ledger tracks net balances rather than atomic outputs.
The fork in this example is a simple block size limit increase with no other consensus rule changes.
The fork creates not two, but three categories of bitcoins:
- Pre-fork a.k.a undifferentiated coins
- Large block coins
- Small block coins
Small block coins are any utxos whose history includes at least one generation output on the small block chain after the large block chain has diverged.
Undifferentiated coins are all other utxos.
In order to all the small block and large block coins to be detected, I'd modify the indexing code of the node to track the "most recent origin" for every utxo consisting of the chain height and block hash of the most recent generation output ancestor.
The existing currency symbol the exchange has assigned to Bitcoin would be interpreted as undifferentiated coins. New currency symbols would be created for large block coins and small block coins. No balances would be converted automatically.
Withdrawals of undifferentiated coins are initially broadcast on both chains.
After the exchange has received a deposit of large block coins (small block coins), it then becomes possible to start trading that currency and to allow users to request a withdrawal of their undifferentiated balances as that type of coins. This is accomplished by using the large block coins (small block coins) as inputs to the withdrawal transaction.
If a user wants to internally convert their balance from undifferentiated coins to large or small block coins, they'd be allowed to do so but this would require the exchange to perform an internal on-chain transaction to create the appropriately differentiated utxos.
Throughout the entire process, deposits are credited as the appropriate type based on whether or not they are differentiated.
A bit of attention to detail reveals this talk of a "replay attack" to be nonsense - it only looks like an attack because of the exchanges aren't handling the fork correctly. Reality is more complex than "everybody automatically doubles their coins after a fork".
PS: as far as I know the strategy I described doesn't work in Ethereum because their ledger tracks net balances rather than atomic outputs.
go1111111
Active Member
From the BTC forks thread: "Developers, miners, investors and nodes should all have equal influence in the system"
I agree that the quote is really bad, as if developers and miners should have as much power as investors. In a magical ideal system, miners and developers would have no decision making power. They'd function more like contractors hired by investors/users.
IMO the main idea to convey the pro-fork philosophy is that the free choices of investors and users is the best governance mechanism, and no one other than investors/users should try to interfere with these choices.
I agree that the quote is really bad, as if developers and miners should have as much power as investors. In a magical ideal system, miners and developers would have no decision making power. They'd function more like contractors hired by investors/users.
IMO the main idea to convey the pro-fork philosophy is that the free choices of investors and users is the best governance mechanism, and no one other than investors/users should try to interfere with these choices.
I don't know, maybe he has super secret knowledge even the lead dev and committers of Bitcoin core should not know about - because that helps to address it I guess:
https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/4yl5wp/gmaxwell_breaks_down_while_discussing_cobras/
https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/4yl5wp/gmaxwell_breaks_down_while_discussing_cobras/
adamstgbit
Well-Known Member
- Mar 13, 2016
- 1,206
- 2,650
i think we are moving towards that...
at first there was 1 dev making ALL the decisions about everything.
...
fast forward to today, and we have a few groups of devs all implementing different solutions.
users/miners now must make a choice, and the devs are kinda powerless, each group of devs simply provides a option then wait and see if users adopt their solution of the other devs solution.
i think we'll see more and more groups of devs, this will give users more and more choices, thereby make individual groups of devs powerless.
To give investors/users the total power sounds like "shareholder value" in stock markets. Iinvestors/users don´t think in the long run quite often. Developers and miners have first hand experience that is possible with the software/hardware in use. And how software/hardware can be improved without risking the ship.
What's this about a $500,000 donation to BU?
That´s up with this post at news.bitcoin.com?
https://news.bitcoin.com/bitcoin-unlimited-formal-us-registration/
‘Bitcoin Unlimited’ Reveals $500k Donation, Formal US Registration
By William Suberg -
August 20, 2016
The article provides a link to this forum:
"The news was released to members via a post today"
But i only get an error if i follow the link:
Bitcoin Forum - Error
The requested conversation could not be found.
https://news.bitcoin.com/bitcoin-unlimited-formal-us-registration/
‘Bitcoin Unlimited’ Reveals $500k Donation, Formal US Registration
By William Suberg -
August 20, 2016
The article provides a link to this forum:
"The news was released to members via a post today"
But i only get an error if i follow the link:
Bitcoin Forum - Error
The requested conversation could not be found.
lunar
Well-Known Member
- Aug 28, 2015
- 1,001
- 4,290
Quite surprised how quickly that news got out - 12hrs old? The private thread (Unlimited members) that article links to, is hidden unless you have an invite. Id' repost here but best wait for @solex to do the honours.
Great news though, and can confirm the source. Many thanks mystery donors.
More great stuff in the pipeline.
Great news though, and can confirm the source. Many thanks mystery donors.
More great stuff in the pipeline.
Yes the article is mostly correct. Last time I checked the address it had 430k... this money will be spent in accordance with the BU articles so members you have a responsibility to consider how it might best be used.
Since the articles explicitly mention the intention to become a formal nonprofit I do not think that decision needs a BUIP.
Since the articles explicitly mention the intention to become a formal nonprofit I do not think that decision needs a BUIP.
adamstgbit
Well-Known Member
- Mar 13, 2016
- 1,206
- 2,650
how best to spend that money? thats a tough question...
i think the BU devs should get a sizeable amount of money for their ongoing efforts
i think the BU devs should get a sizeable amount of money for their ongoing efforts
- Aug 22, 2015
- 1,558
- 4,693
Yes. Exciting times ahead for BU.
We wanted the membership to know first. Due to the limit on the number of people in a conversation it was sent to those who have provided signing keys for voting.
The news was leaked, however the article that resulted was IMHO well-written and pretty accurate except rounding up the amount somewhat for dramatic effect
Just to clarify one point. We have no connection with the OnChain Scaling Conferences - Encore Edition which is a separate initiative, and we wish them all the best for a successful event.
Once the BU officers have agreed specific plans we will be making much more detailed announcements, and things which require membership approval will have BUIPs prepared so that they can be amended and voted upon.
We wanted the membership to know first. Due to the limit on the number of people in a conversation it was sent to those who have provided signing keys for voting.
The news was leaked, however the article that resulted was IMHO well-written and pretty accurate except rounding up the amount somewhat for dramatic effect
Just to clarify one point. We have no connection with the OnChain Scaling Conferences - Encore Edition which is a separate initiative, and we wish them all the best for a successful event.
Once the BU officers have agreed specific plans we will be making much more detailed announcements, and things which require membership approval will have BUIPs prepared so that they can be amended and voted upon.
Last edited:
adamstgbit
Well-Known Member
- Mar 13, 2016
- 1,206
- 2,650
BU deserves so much more than a bag of fiat..... but its somthing....
Great news! If Bitcoin is relevant in 5 years, I'm sure Unlimited will play an important role.
Don't blow it all on drugs and hookers.
(I'm only half-joking, be careful. Money always attracts parasites.)
Don't blow it all on drugs and hookers.
(I'm only half-joking, be careful. Money always attracts parasites.)
Congratulations everyone! Time to open a bottle of champagne!
Bitcoin Unlimited was an organic grass-roots effort to help restore Bitcoin to Satoshi's original vision as peer-to-peer electronic cash.
Without sponsorship or corporate backing, we spontaneously organized over Reddit, and later here at bitco.in, delivering the first Bitcoin client that put control over the evolution of the network back where it belongs: in the hands of its users (e.g., with the adjustable block size limit via BUIP001's "emergence consensus" method).
Our success with Xtreme Thin Blocks (Xthin)--fixing a long-standing inefficiency in Bitcoin Core that limited the network's transactional capacity--proved to the world that our small, focussed research & development team can produce best-in-the-world scaling solutions, as well as communicate the benefits of those solutions to the wider Bitcoin community.
This recent donation is external validation that we are on the right track and that our contributions are valued. I am very excited about the future in store for Bitcoin Unlimited, made possible by the commitment of our members and developers, and furthered by this generous anonymous donation.
Bitcoin Unlimited was an organic grass-roots effort to help restore Bitcoin to Satoshi's original vision as peer-to-peer electronic cash.
Without sponsorship or corporate backing, we spontaneously organized over Reddit, and later here at bitco.in, delivering the first Bitcoin client that put control over the evolution of the network back where it belongs: in the hands of its users (e.g., with the adjustable block size limit via BUIP001's "emergence consensus" method).
Our success with Xtreme Thin Blocks (Xthin)--fixing a long-standing inefficiency in Bitcoin Core that limited the network's transactional capacity--proved to the world that our small, focussed research & development team can produce best-in-the-world scaling solutions, as well as communicate the benefits of those solutions to the wider Bitcoin community.
This recent donation is external validation that we are on the right track and that our contributions are valued. I am very excited about the future in store for Bitcoin Unlimited, made possible by the commitment of our members and developers, and furthered by this generous anonymous donation.
Norway
Well-Known Member
- Sep 29, 2015
- 2,424
- 6,410
Christoph Bergmann
Active Member
Norway
Well-Known Member
- Sep 29, 2015
- 2,424
- 6,410
Well, this site is 1 year old now. Happy birthday assholes!
And BU is getting funds!
Great!
I love when I read what people like @Gavin Andresen and @Peter R are writing. I love code from @Peter Tschipper @theZerg and others.
To many people here, it's obvious that the core repository has been highjacked by banks (or whatever finance interests).
And BU is getting funds!
Great!
I love when I read what people like @Gavin Andresen and @Peter R are writing. I love code from @Peter Tschipper @theZerg and others.
To many people here, it's obvious that the core repository has been highjacked by banks (or whatever finance interests).
It will not stand!
Enough!
Let's fuck them!
Set BITCOIN free!
Enough!
Let's fuck them!
Set BITCOIN free!
I'm not very informed about dark net markets etc., any of you guys have an idea if the Monero hype in this area has any substance?
Monero was the only altcoin that was ever said to be "interesting" by some (very Bitcoin maximalist) people, who introduced me to Bitcoin. No idea if it's true, but I read, that it's privacy features make it much harder to scale?
Monero was the only altcoin that was ever said to be "interesting" by some (very Bitcoin maximalist) people, who introduced me to Bitcoin. No idea if it's true, but I read, that it's privacy features make it much harder to scale?
molecular
Active Member
- Aug 31, 2015
- 372
- 1,391
it's fucking ridiculous this shit is still ongoing:
it was in the wall observer thread, no less
it was in the wall observer thread, no less
