For discussion of the upcoming Bitcoin ABC (BCC) cryptocurrency, launching Nov 15th 2020
Bitcoin Candy team will fork Bitcoin Cash at block height 512666, after which some of the improvements proposed by the community will be added to the forked chain. On this new chain we are going to explore anti-quantum attacks solution of bitcoin based on our cryptography background. Only when we put talk into action can we make bitcoin (cash) great again
I do not want another coin split but Sechet seems determined to provoke one. submitted by
The only way to remediate this is to eliminate the use of his software throughout the ecosystem, effective immediately.
If you're running a Bitcoin ABC node I encourage you to immediately uninstall it and switch to any other implementation, ie. BCHN.
Also, please contact your favorite exchange and request they uninstall Bitcoin ABC.
Bitcoin's on sale right now, 25% off from the all time high. submitted by
Discussion starts off around Tone Vays’ Decred segment sambiohazard submitted by
: he is generally pessimistic about altcoins praxis
: Yes, he's a notorious Bitcoin maximalist. simmysong
: what’d he say about decred? ty13r
: weren't you watching the show? @jimmysong I saw your name in the chat jimmysong
: I popped in just now but then he wasn’t talking decred anymore so i left I also didn’t say anything ty13r
: @jimmysong good to know :slightly_smiling_face: jrick
: oh i found my next avatar ty13r
: @jimmysong he talked about the chart for a minute. I'm not sure what else he said prior. not sure what he said after either lol go1dfish
: sounds like he’s fundamentally opposed to proof of stake sambiohazard
: he just said there is probably downside on price, and maybe its warranted for goo future growth he hadnt researched/read about fundamentals so pure TA ty13r
: sounds like he won't like decred because it's has a form of proof of stake built into the protocol sounds like he hates all ideas related to proof of stake pvtwarren
: he hates all ideas that are not bitcoin pretty much ty13r
: except monero and ethereum i guess pvtwarren
: he doesn't hate ethereum? ty13r
: apparently monero and ethereum deserve to be #2 and #3 not sure I don't see why he wouldn't pvtwarren
: back in January I remember he was still calling it a scam maybe I remember incorrectly cryptocasca
: His problem with PoS guys is the "rich people control the blockchain" problem He told me himself go1dfish
: since when is mining cheap? cryptocasca
: He just needs to hear how our devs got around that I'm not agreeing. Obviously. I'm just saying he thinks of PoS is a system where it's the rich people who control the direction of the coin and proletariat eat the crumbs dustinb
: Congrats on the news y'all - what do you think this trend means for the industry at large? ty13r
: Well I'm not exactly sure we really differ. People who hold a lot of decred and stake it, directly control the future of the blockchain. cryptocasca
: I'm not agreeing. Obviously. I'm just saying he thinks of PoS is a system where it's the rich people who control the direction of the coin and proletariat eat the crumbs The more decred you stake the more say you have. cryptocasca
: There's a cap though @ty13r on the ticket amount that can exist ty13r
: No That's what the sdiff algo does cryptocasca
: Well not a hard one Right ty13r
: I think that's nice though Anyone can participate at any time With enough funds of course cryptocasca
: That's not how he spins it. And we need to combat that mentality. He thinks if you're just a mega whale and buy a bunch of coins that you control the show. That essentially DCR is a system run by whales not people davecgh
: So, regardless of the specifics here, I think this is very likely going to be one of those cases where there will simply be a fundamental difference of opinion on the topic. While a lot of people love to rail on the rich as being evil (while simultaneously wanting to be rich -- the hypocrisy there is quite amusing), the fact of the matter is people with more skin in the game have more incentive to keep their stake more valuable. Loving it or hating it won't change the facts. cryptocasca
: Yes. I agree. ty13r
: Yep. cryptocasca
: I think the staking aspect is important here. ty13r
: But same can be said for PoW mining cryptocasca
: The locking up for 28+ days ty13r
: Buy more miners, you have more say. Well also just like PoW mining anyone can participate at any given time. And people are getting paid for putting skin in the game 142 days is a long time in crypto land Which is the period it takes for a ticket to expire. dustinb
: The problem isn't just that the rich have control, it's that the rich get richer. PoS is similar to compound interest. go1dfish
: the power over traditional bitcoins is in the mining hardware and that is not specific to the currency they back, which is why you have worries about bitcoin forks attacking each other coin_artist
: But also earlier contributors who earned decred build the grassroots community go1dfish
: @dustinb I think that’s a large aspecting driving anti-pos perception but it applies similarly to mining hardware dustinb
: Ya @go1dfish - the combination of long term staking + PoW changes things, I need to think more on it. Tendermint's solution has always been the credible threat of hard fork if anyone's stake gets too big. go1dfish
: but mining also ends up specifically favoring some people due to external factors like power pricing davecgh
: The other thing here is something which doesn't exist yet, so it's completely understandable why it's not considered, but there is a huge difference between hard-fork
voting and proposal voting. dustinb
: Proposal wouldn't solve it. The non-majority would have to hf. ty13r
: I believe this is another reason why 60% of the reward goes to PoW davecgh
: Hard fork voting is changing the rules. It's the kind of thing where you could destroy the currency if you aren't careful. That, in my opinion, should consequently very much have a high barrier to entry. Proposals, on the other hand, should definitely have a lower barrier to entry and thus would be much more inclusive. dustinb
: Ya - that's the exact reason I like decred, save the hfs for the big stuff. davecgh
: These things are not the same and they shouldn't be treated as such. Again, this is my own opinion. I'm sure not everyone agrees. ty13r
: @davecgh but how will you differentiate them economically? davecgh
: e.g. you wouldn't need a full ticket to vote on proposals, but you would for HFV. ty13r
: You might split tickets 32 times, but 1 ticket is still worth 32 votes. davecgh
: On the HFV side, yes. However, you can count them however you want on the proposal side. It's l2. You don't need to weight them the same. ty13r
: So a split ticket weight might have the same weight as non-split ticket? But if that's the case couldn't someone stake their funds with splits to get more votes? Without some sort of identity system it seems difficult to prevent Sybil attacks in that case. davecgh
: I'm spitballing here, so don't take this as gospel or anything, but you could definitely look at the snapshotting tickets and see there are 40960 tickets in total and those tickets are split up such that there are 163,840 participants. So, when you do the proposal system vote, the majority is required to be X% of 163,840. Meanwhile, the on-chain HFV is still 1 ticket = 1 vote. dustinb
: I like making it difficult to hf, but is the goal to make it impossible? Not only does that goal technically seem unlikely but aren't there some advantages to hf when we have very serious disagreements within a network about how to proceed? davecgh
: It's not impossible at all. There is a very nice distribution of holders. ty13r
: We're referring to the proposal system vote right now dustinb
: ah. ty13r
: Basically the signaling mechanism for work and spending funds. davecgh
: The other thing to keep in mind is that the l2 system can be wildly different if we so choose. You can create HLTCs to locked up funds for "layer 2" tickets that can potentially have arbitrary division. You don't have all of the limitations as the on-chain system. ty13r
: The HF vote makes it real. @dustinb we just had what should have been a contentious vote that passed with ease surprisingly. davecgh
: Then, you still have demonstrable skin in the game, just much much less for participating in the lead-up to a hard fork. However, the actual hard fork vote, a.ka. the thing that actually changes the rules, will, necessarily, use the on-chain system. Again, I totally get this is rather abstract right now since it isn't fully built out and mostly just still in our heads. ty13r
: But doesn't attacking the l2 system pose a larger risk? Definitely :slightly_smiling_face: It's like controlling the seeds And the hf vote is like controlling when to harvest If the seeds never get planted there will never be anything to harvest I'm all in favor of lowering the barrier to entry, but increasing the favor of Sybil attacks seems tough to juggle if tickets can have a different weight on the l2 system. davecgh
: Well, people with more skin in the game will still have more influence. So, the majority would still win in that case. It just means it allows more inclusivity, which I think we all desire. ty13r
: Yeah I think that's fair. @davecgh so could the proposal system have completely separate tickets not related to the HF tickets? For example... davecgh
: If we so desire, absolutely. ty13r
: I have a bunch of decred that I'm not HF staking But there's a proposal vote going on that I want to vote for I lock up tickets in the l2 vote for a week (no reward) and get my funds back after the vote has concluded davecgh
: You'd need to think through the adversarial cases as we've done with the on-chain system in order to prevent the case where you vote, all of your locked funds immediately unlock, and then you dump. So, you'd want some type of randomness factor in there to prevent gaming of it. ty13r
: People HF staking still got to vote as well, but so did I without having to lockup my funds for a longer, unknown period of time. What do you mean by dump? davecgh
: However, from a pure perspective of whether or not it's possible, you can definitely have a different ruleset. For example, one of the biggest differences, everything else aside, is that the voting period duration will be much faster. Rather than taking a full month, only having 5 votes per block, etc, in the proposal system, the vote would go on for, say a week, and so long as you own a ticket, you can vote whenever you want within that period. Notice how that ruleset is entirely different already. I personally can envision a need for differing voting periods too. There will very likely be time-sensitive things that need to be voted on more or less immediately and maybe they are only 2 days. On the end of the spectrum, perhaps there are things that need longer than a week. moo31337
: murmurs something about how not interesting ticket splitting is davecgh
: By dump I mean something like "Lock up a bunch of coins, vote down some proposal, all of my coins immediately unlock, sell all of my coins". If you can do that, you no longer necessarily have any incentive to vote according to increasing your holding's values. moo31337
: you really dont want my raw opinion on it davecgh
: That doesn't apply to the on-chain system because you can't snap vote. Your coins are locked, potentially for months, and you can't influence when they unlock at all. So, if you try vote in a way that would decrease your holding's value, you would be doing so to your own detriment. ty13r
: Let's hear it @moo31337 Davecgh
: I can sum it up easily! ty13r
: That's what she said moo31337
: @davecgh nailed it ty13r
: Yeah splitting seems like it has a lot of obstacles moo31337
: I super dont want to write that code ty13r
: @moo31337 assuming increasing the ticket pool size was easy (which I know it's not and could hurt the network) would you be in favor of that? Also increasing votes per block proportionately of course jy-p
: I wouldn't from a on-chain footprint perspective having a "ticket split" similar to a stock split would be a ton of work even having 32 split would lead to a massive footprint for offchain votes in the proposal system let's say you have 100 B for each vote in the proposal system, then take 100 B x 40,960 = ~4 MB for the proposal vote multiply that by 32 to get ~128 MB of offchain data to track for proposals this is one proposal too we'll be experimenting with ways to shrink this footprint soon, so this constraint may improve substantially with time ty13r
: Yeah and on chain votes are even bigger jy-p
: exactly imo, the real solution to the ticket price barrier is to allow tickets to be purchased via a variation on LN davecgh
: Agreed, and that's why I was talking about l2 tickets above. ty13r
: how do you keep people from getting more voting rights though? davecgh
: You don't. Just like in the on-chain system. If you're willing to lock up more funds, you get more influence. However, it allows "smaller fish" to participate too. They just have influence proportional to their stake. ty13r
: But if you own 51% of a ticket you can vote it however you want So you could turn 100 tickets into more tickets davecgh
: Oh, I see your confusion. Yeah, your talking about buying partial tickets. We're talking about just having more tickets period. ty13r
: Ahhh ok sorry So more tickets...but anchored through the LN davecgh
: No worries! Like I said, abstract stuff is always fun to discuss for this reason! Right. ty13r
: I like it. jy-p
: there are a variety of approaches we could take, e.g. fractional voting that is tallied via L2 and rolled into a single ticket we'll start with the simple stuff and see what we can get done first davecgh
: Yeah, one of things you guys might have noticed is we're pretty keen on taking things one step at a time. Trying to do everything half-assed at once is a recipe for failure, imo. ty13r
: So for example you'd have maybe 5 tickets vote directly on chain and 5 tickets vote via LN? Definitely agree with that davecgh
: It might look great on paper when you can tout via marketing that you have X, Y, Z, and a BBQ too! The reality is that if all of those systems are poorly implemented though, it isn't going to make it long term. moo31337
: 40k tickets ought to be enough for everyone one ticket one vote!!! ty13r
: Another reason why I advocate for this project is you guys spend the painstaking time to do things right. So I definitely appreciate the non rush to the finish line mentality. moo31337
: oh there is a rush we just tend not to compromise when it matters I think we need a code is boss meme davecgh
: Right. We do have quite aggressive timelines. However, as @moo31337 said, if we have to bump an estimated release date to make sure something is right, that's what we'll do. jy-p
: speaking of which, i think we're nearing time for 1.1.0 release. that will include the proposal system backend moo31337
: you don’t want my working hours and certainly not @davecgh hours; i dont think anyone understands how @davecgh puts 28 hours in a day ty13r
: I know you guys work your asses off. Feels weird when dave goes offline for a few hours honestly lol Feels like he's been gone for days :joy: reddit thread suggesting name change appears ay-p
: Ahhh that daily "let's change the name" thread jy-p
: I'm 100% sick of these posts ty13r
: lol I was about to say the same thing jy-p
: "I know you're named john, but i think you'd sound much more attractive if you were named " look at the names of these other major projects - they are beyond retarded
go1dfish: you just know it’s going to be a popular proposal when that system is ready.
davecgh: I'm actually looking forward to that proposal. It will be voted down once and for all. Then, in the future we'll just be able to link to the failed proposal. No fuss.
davecgh: I'm never going to shop at Amazon because it has too much to do with rivers and jungles and women warriors!
jy-p: the word Amazon triggers me b/c of the systematic destruction of the rainforest there
moo31337: see my turquoise was dead on! colors are hip for branding these days and it has to be calming
go1dfish: I like the name I think where the branders can win the fight is in suggesting good unit names decred works as a project name, but it seems a bit clunky as a unit name.
davecgh: Well, we probably shouldn't be so dismissive, but after seeing the same thing so many times, it's kind of comical. What is especially funny is that if you actually followed some of the others that people now claim are "good" names, there were the exact same threads about them not being good names too. Now, they are magically good names though because they're popular.
How does everyone else feel about eventually locking down the protocol? Regardless if you hate csw or whatever, lets discuss ideas not personas. I think hard forking every 6 months is dangerous and will lead to a vector of corruption and oligarchy to creep into the system. How does everyone else feel? Is a hard fork every 6 months too much? It is important to maintain a balance and be able to progress and tweak changes that allow us to scale worldwide. Satoshi made many changes in the early days, and we are still in the early days. But as the system grows and scales, I think stability becomes very important, and is even an emergent property of Bitcoin. As it gets bigger it is going to be harder to change. We have seen this in Core, as it grew it became more difficult to change and get blocksize limit increases. submitted by
This could also be an argument to make more changes now before it becomes harder later, which I think is also a valid argument. I think even eliminating the blocksize limit is an important thing to do soon, before others come in and try to Block the Stream again. So it seems there are multiple angles to this issue. Those that want to push changes, and those that want to be more conservative. Also there are those that want to push changes now and then soon after "lock down the protocol". Then there seems like others that just want to push continual changes forever, every 6 months. I also think people should be charitable when contemplating what it means when they say "lock down the protocol". I think this means to just make changes a lot harder and difficult, but still allow common sense changes to occur. Perhaps saying "lock it down" is even an attempt to stretch the overton window, in order to counteract the other side that is pushing continual change. I think the balance is somewhere in the middle, but I am interested to see where the community lies, and hope we could have real discussion and not ad hom troll wars.
I've been thinking about this for the past few weeks. It looks like Bitcoin is starting to undergo a series of chain splits with the underlying intention to increase overall Bitcoin or fiat holdings. (Yes, that statement is politically charged, but stay with me for few minutes.) submitted by
The Bitcoin Cash fork was successful in that those who sell their Bitcoin Cash are able to accumulate more Bitcoin as a result. And now we have Bitcoin Gold coming in a few days, and the great Segwit2x battle next month. In both cases, there will be a lot of sellers who want to gain more BTC by selling off their split chain coins.
The greatest threat until now has been replay attacks, in which a transaction on one chain could be replayed on another chain if both transactions are otherwise identical. We all know that both Bitcoin Gold and Bitcoin2x are unlikely to include any form of protection from this. In the event that either doesn't, and the chain stays alive long enough for people to trade, BTC holders will have to defend themselves either by never using the alternative chain, or by migrating their BTC coins to new wallets following the split (taking the risk that a replay attack could occur on the other chain).
Even though public sentiment is heavily weighted towards sticking with the current Bitcoin chain and selling off alts, both chains will probably live long enough to be used and contain value. Therefore, the chains are largely viewed as cash cows and little else.
Here's the rub: if someone wanted to take down Bitcoin, they could implement something far worse than a lack of replay protection. If wallets on the alternative chain used weak transaction signing and sabotaged encryption, they could make it far easier to derive private keys. In this event, hackers wouldn't need to use replay attacks - they could just simply determine private keys as they're used on the alt chain and test all of them on the BTC chain, emptying wallets that haven't already moved their coins. An attack wouldn't even have to be this sophisticated: the wallets could simply contain malware that emails your private keys to the hackers.
If the code and the binaries provided for miners and wallets aren't completely verified, and if the chain survives, then all BTC holdings that aren't transferred out from their original wallets prior to using the same private keys on the alternative chain are at risk. This problem is significant for exchanges, in which most Bitcoin holdings are usually kept within a few (large) wallets.
The crypto community should be vehemently against any Bitcoin fork that isn't properly and thoroughly audited by security experts. When the developers of a fork aren't known, and the code isn't revealed, the potential for an attack is significantly higher.
Right now, I think most crypto users are blinded by greed in an attempt to profit off the alternate chains, thinking that replay protection is the worst of their worries. It isn't, and an attacker knows that.
tl;dr - A Bitcoin fork could contain malware, and anyone who uses their wallets or miners could be putting their BTC at risk.
When a fork does not implement replay-protection, you are vulnerable to replay attacks when you transfer coins on either chain. A replay attack causes the transaction to be effective on both chains, even if it was only intended for one. So if you were sending 1 BTC to Alice, an attacker could force you to send 1 Forked Bitcoin to someone's Forked Bitcoin address, and vice-versa, causing funds ... A hard fork is seemingly underway for the Bitcoin Gold network as announced in an official update dated June 4 th.The upgrade comes as an answer to two pressing issues – the threat of ASIC miners for the Equihash space and the spate of 51% attacks that have plagued Bitcoin Gold, Verge, and ZCash of late. Bitcoin#9: Segwit & Various Attacks. 손동하 . Follow. May 4, 2019 · 11 min read. NiceHash, Selfish Mining, BWH, and FAW attack. Security in a blockchain is one of the most important factors ... The Bitcoin Gold (BTG) network suffered another set of 51% attacks on January 23-24, as roughly 29 blocks were removed in two deep blockchain reorganizations (reorgs). Reports indicate that more ... Possible Bitcoin Hard Fork And Replay Attacks. However, all of this is just a possibility. But it might turn into a reality very soon. So precaution is always better than cure. It will be very interesting to see what happens in the next few weeks. I hope this insight into Bitcoin’s future will help you in making better decisions.
Bitcoin is going to experience yet another hard fork in November. Whenever such a fork happens the network becomes vulnerable to replay attacks. Whenever such a fork happens the network becomes ... Bitcoin 2X hard fork has been suspended indefinitely. As a result, Bitcoin spiked initially (and has since corrected quite a bit). This might seem odd given the overall notion of the market was ... Sybil Attacks are extremely common in the day-to-day world. They are happening all around and yet you may not even notice. How do blockchains prevent sybil a... How does proof-of-work prevent 51% attacks? Can the attacker change the whole chain in a 51% attack? How often has a 51% attack occurred? Could a government agency reverse a transaction? Did ... 50+ videos Play all Mix - Fork Attack - Proof of Beats ft. Andreas Antonopoulos YouTube; Proof of ... Buy Bitcoin is Not too Late - Andreas Antonopoulos - Duration: 30:36. Bitcoin Money Maker ...