• Breaking News

    Wednesday, November 21, 2018

    Home Unlabelled BTC Gavin Andresen on ABC checkpointing: “Refusing to do an 11-deep re-org is reasonable and has nothing to do with centralization.”

    BTC Gavin Andresen on ABC checkpointing: “Refusing to do an 11-deep re-org is reasonable and has nothing to do with centralization.”

    November 21, 2018

    BTC Gavin Andresen on ABC checkpointing: “Refusing to do an 11-deep re-org is reasonable and has nothing to do with centralization.”

    Gavin Andresen on ABC checkpointing: “Refusing to do an 11-deep re-org is reasonable and has nothing to do with centralization.”

    Posted: 20 Nov 2018 07:03 PM PST

    Bitcoin ABC 0.18.5 has been released! This release adds deep reorg protection to ensure that transactions are immutable after 10 confirmations. This safeguard helps users, businesses, and exchanges stay secure and free from disruption.

    Posted: 20 Nov 2018 04:41 PM PST

    ABC to Retain BCH Ticker on Coinbase

    Posted: 20 Nov 2018 12:46 PM PST

    The reason the small-block attack succeeded in crippling bitcoin but the big-block attack failed was that Maxwell had the benefit of censorship and Craig Wright didn’t.

    Posted: 20 Nov 2018 08:16 PM PST

    Censorship protects the incompetent. Open discussion exposes it. Thank you Roger for your tenacity and thank you mods for your discipline. I can't imagine how hard it must be sometimes.

    submitted by /u/mossmoon
    [link] [comments]

    Coinbase update: We have observed consensus in the community that the BCH ABC chain will retain the designation of Bitcoin Cash (BCH). Coinbase will also adopt this designation for BCH.

    Posted: 20 Nov 2018 12:59 PM PST

    How do you go from "no split" "BCH will come out stronger than before" to "As long as NOBODY is BCH we will go our separate ways..." SV's plan seems to have been to kill the BCH ticker.

    Posted: 20 Nov 2018 06:55 PM PST

    Coinbase resumes BCH trading

    Posted: 20 Nov 2018 03:06 PM PST

    Just an FYI

    submitted by /u/michaelmclees
    [link] [comments]

    Two things I'd rather not read about here any more: BSV and CSW.

    Posted: 20 Nov 2018 10:13 AM PST

    The war is over. It cost us too much, and it's time the two teams go their separate ways. Please don't gloat, don't boast, don't insult, don't post every comment by people we're not involved with anymore. Just get on with making bitcoin cash the best money the world has ever seen!

    p.s. The bitcoin cash chain will not be attacked, it's all FUD and keeps people talking about a team and chain that deserves no attention whatsoever, neither good nor bad.

    submitted by /u/sqrt7744
    [link] [comments]

    Donating 1 Bitcoin (BTC) to Charity On My 10 Year Open Heart Surgery Anniversary

    Posted: 20 Nov 2018 07:44 PM PST

    Bitstamp: "BCH DEPOSITS: We currently require 25 network confirmations for a BCH deposit to be successfully processed. Only send coins from Bitcoin Cash ABC chain to Bitstamp. Deposits from Bitcoin Cash SV chain will not be processed!"

    Posted: 21 Nov 2018 01:06 AM PST

    Bitstamp update on BCH hard fork: Bitcoin Cash deposits and withdrawals are available again at Bitstamp. Right now, we only support transfers from/to Bitcoin Cash ABC chain. Do not send coins from Bitcoin Cash SV chain to Bitstamp, as they will not be credited!

    Posted: 20 Nov 2018 01:42 PM PST

    No, auto-checkpoints are not "muh centralization" but they do have risks

    Posted: 20 Nov 2018 11:05 PM PST

    How could it be centralized if every node does it independently? Anyway, there is a risk, when the "attacker" chain would be first seen by a node. IMO, it would be better to have an opt-in database of "proper" checkpoints, like Monero does: https://monero.stackexchange.com/questions/679/what-is-moneropulse

    submitted by /u/mcodisco
    [link] [comments]

    Are the mods sleeping over att r/bitcoin?

    Posted: 20 Nov 2018 01:38 PM PST

    On the new deep reorg protection

    Posted: 21 Nov 2018 12:36 AM PST

    I woke up today to see two threads flooded with discussion about ABCs new deep reorg protection. As I feel partially responsible for this, since I've suggested such a mechanism in a past thread, I'd like to make a comprehensive thread on the topic.

    Terminology

    Full Node: A full node (which is what miners, businesses, SVP wallets and full node wallets rely on) has a complete copy of the blockchain. The full node is also connected to its peers to receive and relay new blocks that are found.

    Blockchain: Blocks always reference the block they are built on, hence forming a chain of blocks.

    Consensus: A set of rules agreed upon by all network participants what constitutes block permissible to be included on the chain and which have to be orphaned because they are invalid as per consensus.

    Orphan: If a miner receives a block but does not build on it for whatever reason (consensus violation or other metrics)

    Fork: When two blocks appear that are referencing the same parent block

    longer/shorter chain: Nodes select which is the canonical chain based on which valid chain (of several alternative forks that conform to consensus) has the most accumulated proof of work (for simplicities sake abreviated as "longer chain"). The shorter chain would be any with less accumulated proof of work.

    Reorg: If there are several alternative chains and one that was previously behind overtakes the other, then a reorg happens where all transactions in the now shorter chain get invalidated by the now longer chain.

    Deep reorg: If there is a reorg that goes unusually far back. For instance in the nearly 10 year history of the BCH chain, it only happened 2 in extraordinary circumstances that a 10 block deep reorg appeared (and both times in extraordinary circumstances that required manual intervention regardless).

    Network partition: If there is an event which causes nodes on the network to mutually reject each others chain choices and side with one or the other side of a fork.

    What is deep reorg protection?

    This is a new rule introduced by the ABC implementation for full nodes, that will cause them to orphan a block if it builds on a chain whose fork origin lies back further than 10 blocks.

    Why do we need it?

    BCH being a relatively small chain it faces some issues with an attack where the attacker amasses enough hashing power to secretly build a longer chain than the chain everybody knows about. When the attacker broadcasts the blocks of this chain, they cause a reorg that goes back however long the attacker secretly mined (could be hours, days, weeks, months or years). CSW has threatened to do that.

    The usual rule for when to accept a transaction as irreversible is 6 transactions (which is used by most exchanges and the like). Not only can the attacker with his reorg cause this to blow up (by not including those transactions), but he can also specially craft transactions to go into one block and say send coins to an exchange, but in the reorg exclude those transactions and include another transaction that he spends to his own wallet, and therefore execute a successful and damaging double spend (CSW has threatened to do that too).

    Is this not a unilateral consensus change by ABC making BCH not Bitcoin?

    No. This isn't a consensus change per se. Consensus is what can possibly constitute a valid chain as agreed upon by all network participants. It rules the visible history, the one that gets persisted forever. Miners can and do use a variety of "soft" rules to orphan blocks that technically conform to consensus (such as when they're to large, too expensive to validate, etc.)

    Was it proper for ABC to introduce this change out of the blue?

    I'm not terribly happy it got introduced as it was. I would've hoped there to be a robust debate and analysis of the measure by people way smarter than me, and I haven't seen any of that. That doesn't mean it's automatically a bad idea or change, but it may need some refinement, refinement that I hope every implementation, miner and full-node operator can get behind.

    Will this not disrupt the usual functioning of the network?

    No. 10-block deep reorgs only happened twice in the nearly 10 year history of the BCH chain and both times in extraordinary circumstances that required manual intervention regardless.

    What if a 10-block deep reorg is not an attack?

    This may happen in circumstances where the internet for a whole country (let's say China) is cut for a couple of hours. In that case there will be a more than 10-block deep fork of miners on either side of the internet (those within china and those outside). If this happens, a manual intervention will be required regardless if the deep reorg protection exists or not. Miners in China do not want to reorg the chain that users/businesses/exchanges outside of China accept as canonical. It is most likely that businesses/exchanges within China would suspend withdraw/deposit and wait for the network to be restored to pick up the chain when the network is restored.

    Does this introduce a new attack vector?

    I think it does create a new attack surface.

    1. Create a 10-block deep fork
    2. Broadcast 9 of the blocks (you may fake them arriving at organic intervals)
    3. Wait for the 10th block to be found on the other side of the fork and immediately broadcast your 10th block
    4. Let block propagation and node selection partition the network into two parts that mutually reject each others canonical chain as a 10-block deep reorg

    Due to a concern-troll describing this attack in hundreds of replies on other posts I shall call this the zhell attack.

    Can the zhell attack be mitigated?

    I don't know. I think there may be mitigation strategies, but these will need a robust discussion and analysis to be developed, and I hope all developers/implementations/businesses will be part of that debate.

    A suggestion/musing on how to determine a valid chain from several alternatives without PoW

    The 10-block deep reorg protection circumvents PoW at the 10-block depth as the determinant of the "longest chain". Therefore any resolution strategy in a fork 10 or more blocks deep cannot rely on PoW. But if everybody can canonically agree on which side of the fork is the valid one whenever they get to see it (sooner or later), that does not matter as long as both sides of the fork are otherwise valid by consensus and everybody just picks one. The reorg attack can only succeed if it replaces the previously seen chain, so the goal is to make it improbably/hard to work out for an attacker to control which chain that is.

    I'm not sure how to achieve this exactly, but it seems to me you could use block-hashes in some way to force a deterministic, non-controllable decision that would be hard to undo unless you want to rehash 10 blocks repeatedly until you found a chain that accidentially satisfies that criteria.

    A naive (incomplete) implementation of that idea would be to compare the hash of the 10th block hash and pick whichever side of the fork as valid that has (numerically) the higher one. That idea is naive/incomplete because the attacker can repeatedly hash the 10th block until he found one that satisifies that criteria, and the probability of achieving it are 50% (not a very good mitigation). But if that principle could somehow be extended to all the 10 blocks (i.e. make the attacker waste much more work before he knows he's got a good 10-block reorg chain), it would make the attack extremely difficult as he would have to repeatedly hash 10 blocks over and over until he found a match.

    In a larger context this is about an asymmetric/amplification defense. It has to be vastly more difficult to attack a chain than it is to maintain it. Malicious behavior has to be penalized so heavy in terms of difficulty/cost to pull it off, that even modest resources are sufficient to defend a chain. I know that this would seem to go againsts the grain of PoW, but I don't think it has to. PoW has to play an essential role in any defense, but it has to be used in a fashion to facilitate the amplification of attack cost, not make it more costly for the defenders to defend their chain from attack.

    submitted by /u/pyalot
    [link] [comments]

    Miners are unprofitably mining BCH and keeping it secure. Let's all thank them and reward them by buying more Bitcoin Cash!

    Posted: 20 Nov 2018 08:04 AM PST

    It was never about Crypto. It was about a CSW running a 'long-con' with Ayre as his mark. No one has lost more over this fraud than Calvin Ayre.

    Posted: 20 Nov 2018 10:58 AM PST

    I am not particularly sympathetic, since Ayre is attracted to performing like a predator. But I think this is something that has not been addressed and should be talked about.

    CSW has been running a long con vs. Calvin Ayre, via the age old 'Confidence Man' scam.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confidence_trick

    CSW has padded his pedigree with paper degrees and evolved through his life as a con man of a different style, with just enough credibility to suck in the gullible.

    Con men target the wealthy out of necessity.

    This begain with simple statements that any believers in the crypto space would have made in 2015-2016, that NOW is the time to get into crypto and you should consider mining. Ayre missed the boat and CSW used that, in addition to his fake Satoshi claims to snooker in, retired wealthy Ayre.

    Claiming to have lost control of his coins as part of the Satoshi Team, generating sympathy from Ayre and fradulently padding his pedigree in crypto at the same time. Selling bullshit patents to Ayre/nChain to suck money out of his 'mark'. Gaining a high salary as 'Chief Scientist'. Getting a % of profits from all CoinGeek mining and crypto operations.

    Setting up a SV Pool with higher profits going towards CSW himself.

    The final gambit was an attempted takeover of BCH by BSV. CSW had nothing to lose. He had already gained millions through Ayre and if BSV was successful, it would continue the con at a higher level generating even more income and status to CSW.

    If it all went down in flames, CSW didn't care. It was Ayre's money from the start. The end game was to take as much wealth from Ayre as possible and CSW had already received millions and could walk away. If everything burned down and failed, CSW had nothing to lose. This was all run based on Ayre's wealth that was being manipulated and pilfered methodically.

    submitted by /u/BTC_StKN
    [link] [comments]

    Bitcoin Cash Network Has Completed Its Scheduled Upgrades - Bitsonline

    Posted: 20 Nov 2018 07:49 PM PST

    Calvin's generous blackmailing offer

    Posted: 20 Nov 2018 07:31 PM PST

    What a reasonable offer from Calvin:

    https://coingeek.com/plan-end-worlds-first-bitcoin-hash-election/

    TLDR: We won't attack your chain if you give up the BCH ticker and instead adapt BAB, whilst we take BSV. Blackmailing anyone?

    This is just a tip of the ice berg in a series of rather absurd antics from Calvin, who likes to constantly smear competitors like Bitmain (https://twitter.com/CalvinAyre/status/1036464767198736384) or the Wormhole project (https://twitter.com/CalvinAyre/status/1059494222120865792).

    Many hoped to resolve the current conflict at the miner and dev meeting in Bangkok, where Calvin didn't even bother to attend, but still felt the need to write this hit-piece afterwards:

    https://coingeek.com/fear-and-loathing-in-bangkok-calvin-ayre-inside-the-worlds-first-budding-bitcoin-hash-war/

    He was also the first one to cheer for this hash war and "Nakamoto consensus" (https://twitter.com/CalvinAyre/status/1045369522948050944), but the first one to make excuses as things went South for him (https://twitter.com/CalvinAyre/status/1061203111371567104).

    Of course he never delivered any proof for the supposedly rented hash rate from Bitcoin.com either.

    IMO Roger should clearly reject Calvin's generous offer, and putting him in his place may not hurt either. Calvin came new into the crypto space, but instead of acting humbly and competing on merit he's a steady source of toxicity.

    ​

    submitted by /u/DerSchorsch
    [link] [comments]

    This post from Peter R is why I strongly support the ABC/BU teams. Thanks to both the BU and ABC teams and of course Jihan and Roger and their teams for everything you did to repel this extraordinarily hostile but blunt attack.

    Posted: 21 Nov 2018 02:11 AM PST

    Bitcoin Cash ABC vs Bitcoin Cash SV: an infographic

    Posted: 20 Nov 2018 02:07 PM PST

    Bitcoin Cash SV's 'Blockchain Reorg' Likely an Accidental Split, Not an Attack

    Posted: 20 Nov 2018 08:01 PM PST

    TL;DR

    ​

    "The ABC side has been adamant in saying that the network cannot yet handle large blocks and the BSV side were being reckless pushing for a 128MB block size. So a two block reorg demonstrates pretty clearly that the ABC side was right." - Chris Pacia

    ​

    and

    ​

    "[Craig Wright] and the SV people didn't believe what the scientists and engineers were saying about the current scalability limitations, and now they are proving us right while the world is watching." - Peter Rizun

    ​

    Source:

    https://www.coindesk.com/bitcoin-cash-svs-blockchain-reorg-likely-an-accidental-split-not-an-attack

    submitted by /u/CCalith
    [link] [comments]

    Email from SFOX Exchange says they will fully support the ABC chain using the BCH ticker!

    Posted: 20 Nov 2018 01:30 PM PST

    Bitcoin Cash Ticker on CoinMarketCap Was Won By Bitcoin Cash ABC

    Posted: 20 Nov 2018 03:52 PM PST

    Merchants using BitPay (and most other payment gateways) cannot take Bitcoin Cash payments now. Merchants should use a payment gateway where they are in control of their own payments. At Keys4Coins we do. Battlefield 5 is available for purchase with BCH

    Posted: 20 Nov 2018 05:06 PM PST

    Hard Forked BCHSV gets passed over by Coinbase.

    Posted: 20 Nov 2018 08:43 PM PST
    Read more
    at

    No comments:

    Post a Comment