This Key Part Of Bitcoin's History Is What Separates It ...

06-25 16:42 - 'There are actually several other competent devs currently contributing to the project, including Justin Langston, Mike Belshe, James Hilliard, Jeffrey Christopher, and others. Hell, even Luke-jr audited some of the new code thi...' by /u/paleh0rse removed from /r/Bitcoin within 0-7min

'''
There are actually several other competent devs currently contributing to the project, including Justin Langston, Mike Belshe, James Hilliard, Jeffrey Christopher, and others. Hell, even Luke-jr audited some of the new code this morning and provided needed changes/fixes.
I wholeheartedly believe that they will all remain involved with the BTC1 project after the hardfork, and several Core contributors may even contribute code in the future.
There's no reason at all for them to simply fold up shop once the charter is realized.
'''
Context Link
Go1dfish undelete link
unreddit undelete link
Author: paleh0rse
submitted by removalbot to removalbot [link] [comments]

[Megathread] On August 1, 2017 at 6:12pm UTC (block 478559), a new altcoin called Bcash (BCH) has been created using Bitcoin's transaction history. Bitcoin itself continues to function normally.

What is happening?

In what has been touted as the culmination of a multi-year scaling debate, on August 1, 2017 at 6:12pm UTC (block 478559) a new altcoin was created from Bitcoin. The new altcoin is known as "Bcash" (BCH) or "Bitcoin Cash" (BCC) depending on which wallet/exchange you ask. In order to avoid confusion with actual Bitcoin and other altcoins, we recommend readers refer to the new altcoin as "Bcash" (BCH).
As with all altcoins, Bcash is technically off-topic for the /Bitcoin subreddit. However, Bcash was created based on Bitcoin's transaction history, and therefore all Bitcoin owners should be able to retrieve an equal amount of Bcash with some effort. Your Bitcoins are just as safe as they were before the chain split, but you should take care not to compromise your private keys if you wish to retrieve Bcash. This is not urgent unless you wish to trade immediately. If you choose to retrieve your Bcash, please be aware that consolidating your UTXOs will impact your privacy on both chains.
In order to help readers navigate this confusing situation and minimize disruption of relevant content, /Bitcoin has dedicated this sticky thread where readers can ask questions or leave comments pertaining to Bcash. If you are wondering how to retrieve your new altcoin holdings, please read the discussion thoroughly as your questions may already have been answered. If you don't see a similar question, please be sure to mention your wallet method and preferred exchange so that other readers can help address your concerns. You are also invited to submit new threads to the /Bcash subreddit if you so choose.
If you would like to understand the motives behind this new altcoin, please read The Future of “Bitcoin Cash:” An Interview with Bitcoin ABC lead developer Amaury Séchet.
A Beginner’s Guide to Claiming Your “Bitcoin Cash” (and Selling It) is a must-read for anyone feeling particularly lost.

But I thought we avoided a chain split?

For those of you who thought we avoided a chain split with the activation of BIP91 a couple weeks ago, here's a very loose summary of what happened on the Segwit (BIP141, BIP148, BIP91) front:
  1. Bitcoin Core team deployed Segwit (BIP141) last year
  2. Miners refused to activate Segwit via BIP9
  3. Users deployed UASF (BIP148 by shaolinfry) to require Segwit (BIP141) signaling by August 1st
  4. Miners activated BIP91 (by James Hilliard) on July 20th in response to UASF (BIP148)
  5. BIP91 complied with UASF (BIP148) by enforcing Segwit (BIP141) signaling ahead of August 1st
  6. Segwit BIP141 is expected to lock in on Tuesday, August 8th
  7. Segwit BIP141 is expected to activate on Monday, August 21st
  8. BIP148 activated successfully without any chain split
  9. Another altcoin called "SegWit2x" (B2X) may be created later this year, similar to Bcash but with less safety precautions regarding replay protection
Despite all the progress we're making in scaling Bitcoin both on-chain and off-chain, the Bcash crew has decided to part ways with the Bitcoin project by creating a new altcoin. The key differences are that they are attempting to gut Segwit from their forked client, as well as increasing the deprecated max_block_size attribute to 8MB.

Various Announcements:

Electrum 1 - Electrum 2 - Trezor - Ledger - Coinbase - Breadwallet - Bitfinex - Airbitz - Blockchain.info - Exodus - Jaxx - Kraken - Bittrex - Greyscale - Yobit - Bitcoin Core - Bitstamp - [Mycelium]() - [GreenAddress]() - BitcoinTalk - (Reply in comments to add other services)

/Bitcoin wishes Bcash a happy farewell and the best of luck in their new venture!

submitted by BashCo to Bitcoin [link] [comments]

Bitclub is unintentionally launching a malleability attack, there is much more to this story

Hey all,
Let me introduce myself. I am Joshua J. Bouw or gritt-n-auld (grittenald as well). I want to post the disclaimer that I didn't meddle much within the Bitclub Network but I was working with them on Clubcoin until January of this year.
I guess I could provide this proof as a link between me and Clubcoin https://www.np.reddit.com/ClubcoinCo/ which is Bitclub Network's PoS digital currency.
Misconception 1: Joby Weeks isn't the guy that runs Bitclub Network. There is a group of guys. I don't know if he is going around saying that or whatever that he is the sole guy. He is def an integral part. Hence the "Club" part of the name as it was intentionally made for friends and friends of friends which kind of grew into this massive multi million monster.
Misconception 2: I spoke to the tech guys and the main guys of Bitclub Tonight after not speaking to them since January to ask them "Wtf are you guys doing". They responded that they have no idea whats going on. I can also confirm that they have nobody on staff that is capable of conceiving an attack such as this.
Now, I may feel like a whistle blower here but this needs to be said, Yoshi of Bitmain BitmainWarranty (edit: Which isn't Bitmain, new revelation a user pointed out below) runs Bitclub Pool (edit: Another revelation being that lightsword James HIlliard an employee at BitmainWarranty is helping out). The ONLY people that have access to that is Bitmain Yoshi and James Hilliard of BitmainWarranty. Bitclub has also openly told me that they would follow the industry decision a while ago. How ironic is that? I noticed that some people have said that they flagged for Segwit support but I am unsure of that.
There are pictures floating around of the guys of Bitclub and Yoshi on the net. There are articles listing Yoshi as a manager at Bitclub Network. Being in the 'know' of Bitclub I know for sure he is apart of it and what he does.
One thing that I have noticed in this developing story is that it spawned from the post on Medium and then people speculated "why" and now that "why" became a "they are doing it intentionally to promote Segwit". No, no they are not.
I have a theory, that there is someone rogue trying to cause harm. A few of my friends have personally determined that this is deliberate as have others. I know for certain it wasn't Bitclub but someone at BitmainWarranty or something else entirely.
I guess I'll end this with a convo I had with a guy at Bitclub when I asked them WTF and linked them a few articles and explained what happened (if you are reading this, sorry man, don't be pissed at me, I am trying to make the community understand instead of witch hunting the MLM guys because MLM is "bad" m'kay?):
--- SNIPPED A BUNCH OF STUFF PRIOR ABOUT NEWS ARTICLES ETC. ---
[7:20:20 PM] Joshua J. Bouw: People in the chat rooms are saying that it is you guys protesting Bitcoin Unlimited because Segregated Witness is the only one that can stop a malleability attack such as that.
[7:36:55 PM] Joshua J. Bouw: https://www.np.reddit.com/btc/comments/5ylfn3/warning_issued_reports_say_a_big_miner_is/
[7:39:11 PM] Joshua J. Bouw: https://www.np.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/5ykl4g/bitclub_why_are_you_doing_malleability_attack_now/
[8:12:37 PM] -------: I don't know why Yoshi would do that.
[8:13:00 PM] Joshua J. Bouw: That is what confussed me as well, I was like "Wtf, this seems so out of line" because they are signalling for BU
[8:13:18 PM] Joshua J. Bouw: Unless they fucked up the code for the signalling on Bitclub's end
[8:13:24 PM] Joshua J. Bouw: which is what I am speculating
[8:14:01 PM] -------: I have no idea. I sent it to Yoshi an hour ago but haven't heard back yet
[8:14:31 PM] Joshua J. Bouw: Yeah tons of my friends sent it to me and I told them, "There is no way in hell they would be wanting to do anything wrong to the Bitcoin network"
[8:15:39 PM] Joshua J. Bouw: He should send off whatever he did to someone to write a BIP to protect against it lol
[8:24:18 PM] -------: Could be a hack to cause drama
[8:24:24 PM] Joshua J. Bouw: That too.
[8:24:30 PM] -------: I wouldn't put anything past Roger
[8:32:01 PM] Joshua J. Bouw: If it is a hack, this is wow, sophisticated. Everyone thought that all those issues were patched. So, to have someone find a new one, and then deploy it on a secure server, that is intense.
[8:37:10 PM] -------: How the fuck would we know to do it. lol
[8:42:14 PM] Joshua J. Bouw: lol I was thinking that too lmao
Anyways, I'm exhausted, tired, and going to bed. Just trying to clear up misconceptions. Say what you will, I'm doing my own thing now and trying to approach this as openly as possible. There is the potential for everything naturally but I know for sure this isn't intentional on their behalf. I think they will make a statement once they find out what the hell is happening.
Edit: Refusing to post this to /bitcoin due to censorship of everything. Long live BU, long live uncensored Bitcoin.
EDIT2: I am NOT BLAMING Roger Ver or Yoshi at BitmainWarranty nor the guys at Bitclub. I have no idea what is happening.
EDIT3: I would like to extend an apology to Bitmain for not knowing that Bitmain and BitmainWarranty were separate.
submitted by Grittenald to btc [link] [comments]

[Megathread] On August 21, 2017, a new altcoin called SegCoin (BSG) will be created using Bitcoin's transaction history. Bitcoin itself continues to function normally, as Bitcoin cash (BCH)

What is happening?
In what has been touted as the culmination of a multi-year scaling debate, on August 21, 2017 a new altcoin will be activated from Bitcoin. The new altcoin is known as "Segcoin" (BSG) or "Bitseg" depending on which wallet/exchange you ask. In order to avoid confusion with actual Bitcoin and other altcoins, we recommend readers refer to the new altcoin as "Segcoin" (BSG)
As with all altcoins, Segcoin is technically off-topic for the /btc subreddit. However, segcoin will be created based on Bitcoin's transaction history, and therefore all Bitcoin owners should be able to retrieve an equal amount of segcoin with some effort. Your Bitcoins are just as safe as they were before the chain split, but you should take care not to compromise your private keys if you wish to retrieve segcoin. This is not urgent unless you wish to trade immediately. If you choose to retrieve your segcoin, please be aware that consolidating your UTXOs will impact your privacy on both chains.
In order to help readers navigate this confusing situation and minimize disruption of relevant content, /btc has dedicated this sticky thread where readers can ask questions or leave comments pertaining to Segcoin. If you are wondering how to retrieve your new altcoin holdings, please read the discussion thoroughly as your questions may already have been answered. If you don't see a similar question, please be sure to mention your wallet method and preferred exchange so that other readers can help address your concerns. You are also invited to submit new threads to the /Segcoin subreddit if you so choose.
If you would like to understand the motives behind this new altcoin, please read The Future of “Segwit coin:” An Interview with Segwit lead developer Peiter Wuille
A Beginner’s Guide to Claiming Your “Segcoin” (and Selling It) is a must-read for anyone feeling particularly lost.
But I thought we avoided a chain split?
For those of you who thought we avoided a chain split with the activation of BIP91 a couple weeks ago, here's a very loose summary of what happened on the Segwit (BIP141, BIP148, BIP91) front:
*Bitcoin Core team deployed Segwit (BIP141) last year
*Miners refused to activate Segwit via BIP9
*Users deployed UASF (BIP148 by shaolinfry) to require Segwit (BIP141) signaling by August 1st
*Miners activated BIP91 (by James Hilliard) on July 20th in response to UASF (BIP148)
*BIP91 complied with UASF (BIP148) by enforcing Segwit (BIP141) signaling ahead of August 1st
*Segwit BIP141 is expected to lock in on Tuesday, August 8th
*Segwit BIP141 is expected to activate on Monday, August 21st
*BIP148 activated successfully without any chain split
Another altcoin called "SegWit2x" (B2X) may be created later this year, similar to Segcoin but with less safety precautions regarding replay protection
Despite all the progress we're making in scaling Bitcoin both on-chain and off-chain, the Segcoin crew has decided to part ways with the Bitcoin project by creating a new altcoin. The key differences are that they are attempting to gut natural block size growth from their forked client, as well as increasing the risk of mining cartels, development centralisation and high fee transactions
/btc wishes Segcoin a happy farewell and the best of luck in their new venture!
submitted by ConalR to btc [link] [comments]

Finally a real chance for the Core team and miners to build some trust

It feels like the Cold War between Russia and the United States. Not a perfect analogy and in the long run things could be better but at times the world was at the point of a nuclear confrontation (anyone researching the topic will see how real it was!)
The point is that eventually, it lead to trust. Any negotiation that is fueled by ideology needs some trust.
Support for segwit may be what it takes. If the miners can accept BIP 148 USAF segwit nodes (rather than require segwit2x only) and Core agrees to work on 2MB HF with best implementation (which will probably be better than segwit2x or an enhanced version) We may build trust and get past this scaling debate.
James Hilliard's merged BIP91 may be the first gesture. Now is time for Core to show some goodwill.
The good news is that everyone wants "bitcoin" to succeed the debate is what it will become, control, politics, etc.
Will Core agree to 2MB if segwit is activated as a soft fork and compatible with BIP 148?
submitted by Sonicthoughts to Bitcoin [link] [comments]

User Activated Soft Fork Split Protection | James Hilliard | Jun 07 2017

James Hilliard on Jun 07 2017:
Due to the proposed calendar(https://segwit2x.github.io/) for the
SegWit2x agreement being too slow to activate SegWit mandatory
signalling ahead of BIP148 using BIP91 I would like to propose another
option that miners can use to prevent a chain split ahead of the Aug
1st BIP148 activation date.
The splitprotection soft fork is essentially BIP91 but using BIP8
instead of BIP9 with a lower activation threshold and immediate
mandatory signalling lock-in. This allows for a majority of miners to
activate mandatory SegWit signalling and prevent a potential chain
split ahead of BIP148 activation.
This BIP allows for miners to respond to market forces quickly ahead
of BIP148 activation by signalling for splitprotection. Any miners
already running BIP148 should be encouraged to use splitprotection.
BIP: splitprotection
Layer: Consensus (soft fork)
Title: User Activated Soft Fork Split Protection
Author: James Hilliard
Comments-Summary: No comments yet.
Comments-URI:
Status: Draft
Type: Standards Track
Created: 2017-05-22
License: BSD-3-Clause
 CC0-1.0 
==Abstract==
This document specifies a coordination mechanism for a simple majority
of miners to prevent a chain split ahead of BIP148 activation.
==Definitions==
"existing segwit deployment" refer to the BIP9 "segwit" deployment
using bit 1, between November 15th 2016 and November 15th 2017 to
activate BIP141, BIP143 and BIP147.
==Motivation==
The biggest risk of BIP148 is an extended chain split, this BIP
provides a way for a simple majority of miners to eliminate that risk.
This BIP provides a way for a simple majority of miners to coordinate
activation of the existing segwit deployment with less than 95%
hashpower before BIP148 activation. Due to time constraints unless
immediately deployed BIP91 will likely not be able to enforce
mandatory signalling of segwit before the Aug 1st activation of
BIP148. This BIP provides a method for rapid miner activation of
SegWit mandatory signalling ahead of the BIP148 activation date. Since
the primary goal of this BIP is to reduce the chance of an extended
chain split as much as possible we activate using a simple miner
majority of 65% over a 504 block interval rather than a higher
percentage. This BIP also allows miners to signal their intention to
run BIP148 in order to prevent a chain split.
==Specification==
While this BIP is active, all blocks must set the nVersion header top
3 bits to 001 together with bit field (1<<1) (according to the
existing segwit deployment). Blocks that do not signal as required
will be rejected.
==Deployment==
This BIP will be deployed by "version bits" with a 65%(this can be
adjusted if desired) activation threshold BIP9 with the name
"splitprotecion" and using bit 2.
This BIP starts immediately and is a BIP8 style soft fork since
mandatory signalling will start on midnight August 1st 2017 (epoch
time 1501545600) regardless of whether or not this BIP has reached its
own signalling threshold. This BIP will cease to be active when segwit
is locked-in.
=== Reference implementation ===
// Check if Segregated Witness is Locked In
bool IsWitnessLockedIn(const CBlockIndex* pindexPrev, const
Consensus::Params& params)
{
LOCK(cs_main); return (VersionBitsState(pindexPrev, params, 
Consensus::DEPLOYMENT_SEGWIT, versionbitscache) ==
THRESHOLD_LOCKED_IN);
}
// SPLITPROTECTION mandatory segwit signalling.
if ( VersionBitsState(pindex->pprev, chainparams.GetConsensus(),
Consensus::DEPLOYMENT_SPLITPROTECTION, versionbitscache) ==
THRESHOLD_LOCKED_IN &&
 !IsWitnessLockedIn(pindex->pprev, chainparams.GetConsensus()) && 
// Segwit is not locked in
 !IsWitnessEnabled(pindex->pprev, chainparams.GetConsensus()) ) // 
and is not active.
{
bool fVersionBits = (pindex->nVersion & VERSIONBITS_TOP_MASK) == 
VERSIONBITS_TOP_BITS;
bool fSegbit = (pindex->nVersion & 
VersionBitsMask(chainparams.GetConsensus(),
Consensus::DEPLOYMENT_SEGWIT)) != 0;
if (!(fVersionBits && fSegbit)) { return state.DoS(0, error("ConnectBlock(): relayed block must 
signal for segwit, please upgrade"), REJECT_INVALID, "bad-no-segwit");
} 
}
// BIP148 mandatory segwit signalling.
int64_t nMedianTimePast = pindex->GetMedianTimePast();
if ( (nMedianTimePast >= 1501545600) && // Tue 01 Aug 2017 00:00:00 UTC
 (nMedianTimePast <= 1510704000) && // Wed 15 Nov 2017 00:00:00 UTC (!IsWitnessLockedIn(pindex->pprev, chainparams.GetConsensus()) && 
// Segwit is not locked in
 !IsWitnessEnabled(pindex->pprev, chainparams.GetConsensus())) ) 
// and is not active.
{
bool fVersionBits = (pindex->nVersion & VERSIONBITS_TOP_MASK) == 
VERSIONBITS_TOP_BITS;
bool fSegbit = (pindex->nVersion & 
VersionBitsMask(chainparams.GetConsensus(),
Consensus::DEPLOYMENT_SEGWIT)) != 0;
if (!(fVersionBits && fSegbit)) { return state.DoS(0, error("ConnectBlock(): relayed block must 
signal for segwit, please upgrade"), REJECT_INVALID, "bad-no-segwit");
} 
}
https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/compare/0.14...jameshilliard:splitprotection-v0.14.1
==Backwards Compatibility==
This deployment is compatible with the existing "segwit" bit 1
deployment scheduled between midnight November 15th, 2016 and midnight
November 15th, 2017. This deployment is also compatible with the
existing BIP148 deployment. This BIP is compatible with BIP91 only if
BIP91 activates before it and before BIP148. Miners will need to
upgrade their nodes to support splitprotection otherwise they may
build on top of an invalid block. While this bip is active users
should either upgrade to splitprotection or wait for additional
confirmations when accepting payments.
==Rationale==
Historically we have used IsSuperMajority() to activate soft forks
such as BIP66 which has a mandatory signalling requirement for miners
once activated, this ensures that miners are aware of new rules being
enforced. This technique can be leveraged to lower the signalling
threshold of a soft fork while it is in the process of being deployed
in a backwards compatible way. We also use a BIP8 style timeout to
ensure that this BIP is compatible with BIP148 and that BIP148
compatible mandatory signalling activates regardless of miner
signalling levels.
By orphaning non-signalling blocks during the BIP9 bit 1 "segwit"
deployment, this BIP can cause the existing "segwit" deployment to
activate without needing to release a new deployment. As we approach
BIP148 activation it may be desirable for a majority of miners to have
a method that will ensure that there is no chain split.
==References==
*[https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2017-March/013714.html
Mailing list discussion]
*[https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/blob/v0.6.0/src/main.cpp#L1281-L1283
P2SH flag day activation]
*[[bip-0009.mediawiki|BIP9 Version bits with timeout and delay]]
*[[bip-0016.mediawiki|BIP16 Pay to Script Hash]]
*[[bip-0091.mediawiki|BIP91 Reduced threshold Segwit MASF]]
*[[bip-0141.mediawiki|BIP141 Segregated Witness (Consensus layer)]]
*[[bip-0143.mediawiki|BIP143 Transaction Signature Verification for
Version 0 Witness Program]]
*[[bip-0147.mediawiki|BIP147 Dealing with dummy stack element malleability]]
*[[bip-0148.mediawiki|BIP148 Mandatory activation of segwit deployment]]
*[[bip-0149.mediawiki|BIP149 Segregated Witness (second deployment)]]
*[https://bitcoincore.org/en/2016/01/26/segwit-benefits/ Segwit benefits]
==Copyright==
This document is dual licensed as BSD 3-clause, and Creative Commons
CC0 1.0 Universal.
original: https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2017-June/014508.html
submitted by dev_list_bot to bitcoin_devlist [link] [comments]

Bitcoin Scaling Proposal Segwit2x Moves Ahead With Initial Code Release

http://www.coindesk.com/first-look-bitcoin-scaling-proposal-segwit2x-gets-alpha-release/
The working group behind the Segwit2x bitcoin scaling proposal has announced that the first version of its code is now ready for review and testing.
As such, the release provides the market with a first look at the technology underlying one of the most broadly supported bids to enhance the network. Announced in May as an "agreement" that united miners and startups, Segwit2x is an alternative technology roadmap to one proposed by Bitcoin Core, the network's open-source developer group.
It has since emerged as a frequent subject of praise, criticism and discussion.
However, in what could be a promising sign, Segwit2x could become a moderate option that helps to avoid a contentious network split, and it looks like it could end up being somewhat compatible with an alternative proposal, the user-activated soft fork (UASF) BIP 148, which, as coded, will activate on 1st August.
The news is notable because earlier this week any compatibility between the two proposals seemed less likely – a discordance that raised fears of a split of the blockchain into two competing assets.
The development became apparent on Wednesday, when bitcoin developer James Hilliard submitted a change request, along with a code change that would reduce the time it takes for mining pools to lock in the update.
On GitHub, Hilliard said:
"This should reduce the chance of a conflict with BIP 148."
By reducing that time, mining pools will have one (or maybe two) three-day periods in which they can lock-in a controversial code change called Segregated Witness (SegWit) by signaling support using the SegWit2x software before the UASF occurs on August 1st. Though, it's unclear if mining pools will decide to do so.
The request was well-received, being met with several 'ACKs' – developer shorthand for 'agreed', and a sign of approval.
Firmer timelines
The alpha release of SegWit2x includes a working version of the software, which combines two changes, the scaling optimization SegWit and an increased 2MB block-size parameter.
The increase to 2MB is now scheduled for three months after SegWit activates, according to an email from BitGo CEO Mike Belshe. Prior to this, it's been less clear (even to some SegWit2x participants) when the 2MB hard fork would take place.
"Segwit2x development has been moving quickly according to plan, and the project is in good shape," Belshe said, in the message to the working group.
The 2MB block size has long been a point of contention, partially because it could lead to a blockchain split if not everyone agrees to upgrade to the new blockchain code. Further, some in the industry have already suggested they don't plan to.
However, SegWit2x has won the support of most major bitcoin companies and mining firms, in total representing over 80% of bitcoin's hash rate. (Though it remains unclear how reliable this support will be owing partly to fatigue around the issue).
With the alpha version out, the wider community now gets to review and test the software. The release also includes a new bitcoin testnet that developers can use to put the software through its paces and identify any bugs.
Testing phase
Developers can trial the software using the new test network, called testnet5, for the next two weeks.
"We are planning to conduct rounds of testing against the new testnet5 including everyone from the working group who would like to participate," BitPay senior developer Justin Langston said in another email to the working group.
The plan for these rounds is to simulate the code's deployment lifecycle, from signaling support for SegWit to activating the 2MB block-size parameter.
These rounds of testing and review are aimed to help avoid any future network problems, such as, in a worst-case scenario, the loss of users' bitcoin.
In the email, Langston wrote:
"My perspective is limited. We need your feedback on what tests would be essential for your company to adequately assess applicable risks and be prepared to deploy on livenet, signaling accordingly, when the time comes."
Security loose ends?
Feedback on SegWit2x's plan has already been rolling in.
One working group participant argued there is potential for 'replay attacks' in the event of a hard fork. Replay attacks, in the event of a split leaving the community with two bitcoin tokens, could allow users to accidentally spend their bitcoin on both networks.
This confusion happened last summer when ethereum split into two coins, leading some companies to lose money.
The participant argued that protection from this confusing and potentially dangerous issue is needed within Segwit2x's code.
Some Bitcoin Core developers have also criticized Segwit2x's development timeline as being too short, because it often takes a significant amount of time to catch all errors associated with bitcoin code changes. SegWit itself was tested for over a year before it was launched.
So far, though, SegWit2x developers haven't skipped a beat, saying the project will continue to move forward along the original timeline, with the beta release scheduled for 30th June. On 21st July, users will be able to run and signal the fully vetted software, according to the group.
Disclosure: CoinDesk is a subsidiary of Digital Currency Group, which helped organize the SegWit2x proposal and has an ownership stake in both BitGo and BitPay.
submitted by german_bitcoiner to btc [link] [comments]

Barry Silbert segwit agreement | shaolinfry | May 22 2017

shaolinfry on May 22 2017:
Someone sent me a copy of the Barry Silbert agreement, an agreement forged between a select number of participants https://pastebin.com/VuCYteJh
Participants agree to immediately activate Segwit, however, under a different activation proposal. Since I have spent the last few months researching various activation strategies of the current BIP141 deployment, as well as redeployment, I feel I am quite well placed to comment on the technicalities.
To be clear, the proposal as far as I can see does not activate BIP141, but is a completely new deployment which would be incompatible with the BIP141 deployment. I'm not sure how that can be considered "immediate" activation. Surely immediate activation would just be for miners to start signalling and segwit would be activated in 4-5 weeks. The proposal seems to require a lower 80% threshold, I assume because they were unable to convince 95% of the hashpower to go trigger activation.
There are a few options to activating segwit now, the first being for 95% of hashrate to signal. The second is for the community to deploy BIP148 UASF which will force miners to signal segwit. Being a UASF it is date triggered. The third option is a redeployment of segwit on a new bit, but requires waiting for the existing deployment to time out, because all the p2p messages and service bits related to segwit must be replaced too (which is what BIP149 does).
A fourth option, first suggested to me by James Hilliard, was to make BIP148 miner triggered (MASF) with a lower threshold, above 50%. I coded this up a few weeks ago https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/compare/master...shaolinfry:segsignal but didnt get around to posting to the ML yet. This effectively lowers the threshold from 95% to 65% as coded, or could be upped to 80% or whatever was preferable.
I think this removes the primary risk of BIP148 causing the creation of two chains, and gives an improved chance to get segwit activated quickly (assuming a majority of miners wish to go this route). But hash a primary disadvantage of still leaving the activation in the hands of miners. If it doesn't work out, then BIP149 can then be used as proposed, but it'll be even safer because we'll have futher guaged support.
References:
SEGSIGNAL: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/compare/master...shaolinfry:segsignal
BIP148: https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/blob/mastebip-0148.mediawiki
BIP149: https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/blob/mastebip-0149.mediawiki
I think the Barry Silbert agreement is very ill considered, and clearly lacking peer review from the technical community. Suggestions of a HF in 4 months are completely unrealistic and without technical merits. But more importantly, closed door agreements between selected participants is not how to garner consensus to change a $30bn decentralized system. The purpose of my email is to try and assist in the "immediate activation of segwit" which only requires hashrate to participate; and to provide some techincal input since I have done a great deal of research and development into the topic.
Given the history we've already passed the point where we should be expecting miners to cooperate in lowering their own fee income with a capacity increase; but we should be open to all reasonable options in the interest in moving things forward in a safe and collaborative way.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20170522/795810e9/attachment.html
original: https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2017-May/014360.html
submitted by dev_list_bot to bitcoin_devlist [link] [comments]

Compatibility-Oriented Omnibus Proposal | CalvinRechner | May 29 2017

CalvinRechner on May 29 2017:
This proposal is written under the assumption that the signatories to the Consensus 2017 Scaling Agreement[1] are genuinely committed to the terms of the agreement, and intend to enact the updates described therein. As such, criticisms pertaining to the chosen deployment timeline or hard fork upgrade path should be treated as out-of-scope during the initial discussion of this proposal.
Because it includes the activation of a hard fork for which community consensus does not yet exist, this proposal is not likely to be merged into Bitcoin Core in the immediate future, and must instead be maintained and reviewed in a separate downstream repository. However, it is written with the intent to remain cleanly compatible with future network updates and changes, to allow for the option of a straightforward upstream merge if community consensus for the proposal is successfully achieved in the following months.
BIP: ?
Layer: Consensus
Title: Compatibility-oriented omnibus proposal
Author: Calvin Rechner
Comments-Summary: No comments yet.
Comments-URI: ?
Status: Draft
Type: Standards Track
Created: 2017-05-28
License: PD
===Abstract===
This document describes a virtuous combination of James Hilliard’s “Reduced signalling threshold activation of existing segwit deployment”[2], Shaolin Fry’s “Mandatory activation of segwit deployment”[3], Sergio Demian Lerner’s “Segwit2Mb”[4] proposal, Luke Dashjr’s “Post-segwit 2 MB block size hardfork”[5], and hard fork safety mechanisms from Johnson Lau’s “Spoonnet”[6][7] into a single omnibus proposal and patchset.
===Motivation===
The Consensus 2017 Scaling Agreement[1] stipulated the following commitments:
• Activate Segregated Witness at an 80% threshold, signaling at bit 4
• Activate a 2 MB hard fork within six months
This proposal seeks to fulfill these criteria while retaining maximum compatibility with existing deployment approaches, thereby minimizing the risks of a destructive chain split. Additionally, subsequent indications of implied criteria and expectations of the Agreement[8][9] are satisfied.
The proposed hard fork incorporates a legacy witness discount and 2MB blocksize limit along with the enactment of Spoonnet-derived protectionary measures, to ensure the safest possible fork activation within the constraints of the requirements outlined in the Scaling Agreement.
===Rationale===
To the extent possible, this represents an effort at a best-of-all-worlds proposal, intended to provide a common foundation from which all mutually-inclusive goals can be achieved while risks are minimized.
The individual constituent proposals include the following respective rationales:
James Hilliard’s “Reduced signalling threshold activation of existing segwit deployment”[2] explains:
The goal here is to minimize chain split risk and network disruption while maximizing backwards compatibility and still providing for rapid activation of segwit at the 80% threshold using bit 4.
Shaolin Fry’s “Mandatory activation of segwit deployment”[3] is included to:
cause the existing "segwit" deployment to activate without needing to release a new deployment.
Both of the aforementioned activation options (“fast-activation” and “flag-day activation”) serve to prevent unnecessary delays in the network upgrade process, addressing a common criticism of the Scaling Agreement and providing an opportunity for cooperation and unity instead.
Sergio Demian Lerner’s “Segwit2Mb”[4] proposal explains the reasoning behind linking SegWit’s activation with that of a later hard fork block size increase:
Segwit2Mb combines segwit as it is today in Bitcoin 0.14+ with a 2MB block size hard-fork activated ONLY if segwit activates (95% of miners signaling ... to re-unite the Bitcoin community and avoid a cryptocurrency split.
Luke Dashjr’s “Post-segwit 2 MB block size hardfork”[5] suggestions are included to reduce the marginal risks that such an increase in the block size might introduce:
if the community wishes to adopt (by unanimous consensus) a 2 MB block size hardfork, this is probably the best way to do it right now... Legacy Bitcoin transactions are given the witness discount, and a block size limit of 2 MB is imposed.
Johnson Lau’s anti-replay and network version updates[6][7] are included as general hard fork safety measures:
In a blockchain split, however, since both forks share the same historical ledger, replay attack would be possible, unless some precautions are taken.
===Copyright===
This document is placed in the public domain.
===Specification===

Proposal Signaling

The string “COOP” is included anywhere in the txn-input (scriptSig) of the coinbase-txn to signal compatibility and support.

Soft Fork

Fast-activation (segsignal): deployed by a "version bits" with an 80% activation threshold BIP9 with the name "segsignal" and using bit 4... [with a] start time of midnight June 1st, 2017 (epoch time 1496275200) and timeout on midnight November 15th 2017 (epoch time 1510704000). This BIP will cease to be active when segwit is locked-in.[2]
Flag-day activation (BIP148): While this BIP is active, all blocks must set the nVersion header top 3 bits to 001 together with bit field (1<<1) (according to the existing segwit deployment). Blocks that do not signal as required will be rejected... This BIP will be active between midnight August 1st 2017 (epoch time 1501545600) and midnight November 15th 2017 (epoch time 1510704000) if the existing segwit deployment is not locked-in or activated before epoch time 1501545600. This BIP will cease to be active when segwit is locked-in. While this BIP is active, all blocks must set the nVersion header top 3 bits to 001 together with bit field (1<<1) (according to the existing segwit deployment). Blocks that do not signal as required will be rejected.[3]

Hard Fork

The hard fork deployment is scheduled to occur 6 months after SegWit activates:
(HardForkHeight = SEGWIT_ACTIVE_BLOCK_HEIGHT + 26280)
For blocks equal to or higher than HardForkHeight, Luke-Jr’s legacy witness discount and 2MB limit are enacted, along with the following Spoonnet-based improvements[6][7]:
===Deployment===
Deployment of the “fast-activation” soft fork is exactly identical to Hilliard’s segsignal proposal[2]. Deployment of the “flag-day” soft fork is exactly identical to Fry’s BIP148 proposal[3]. HardForkHeight is defined as 26280 blocks after SegWit is set to ACTIVE. All blocks with height greater than or equal to this value must adhere to the consensus rules of the 2MB hard fork.
===Backwards compatibility===
This deployment is compatible with the existing "segwit" bit 1 deployment scheduled between midnight November 15th, 2016 and midnight November 15th, 2017.
To prevent the risk of building on top of invalid blocks, miners should upgrade their nodes to support segsignal as well as BIP148.
The intent of this proposal is to maintain full legacy consensus compatibility for users up until the HardForkHeight block height, after which backwards compatibility is waived as enforcement of the hard fork consensus ruleset begins.
===References===
[1] https://medium.com/@DCGco/bitcoin-scaling-agreement-at-consensus-2017-133521fe9a77
[2] https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2017-May/014380.html
[3] https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/blob/mastebip-0148.mediawiki
[4] https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2017-March/013921.html
[5] https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2017-May/014399.html
[6] https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2017-February/013542.html
[7] https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2017-January/013473.html
[8] https://twitter.com/sysmannet/status/867124645279006720
[9] https://twitter.com/JihanWu/status/867139046786465792
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20170528/7696e13f/attachment-0001.html
original: https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2017-May/014445.html
submitted by dev_list_bot to bitcoin_devlist [link] [comments]

Reduced signalling threshold activation of existing segwit deployment | James Hilliard | May 22 2017

James Hilliard on May 22 2017:
I would like to propose an implementation that accomplishes the first
part of the Barry Silbert proposal independently from the second:
"Activate Segregated Witness at an 80% threshold, signaling at bit 4"
in a way that
The goal here is to minimize chain split risk and network disruption
while maximizing backwards compatibility and still providing for rapid
activation of segwit at the 80% threshold using bit 4.
By activating segwit immediately and separately from any HF we can
scale quickly without risking a rushed combined segwit+HF that would
almost certainly cause widespread issues.
Draft proposal:
https://github.com/jameshilliard/bips/blob/bip-segsignal/bip-segsignal.mediawiki
Proposal text:
BIP: segsignal
Layer: Consensus (soft fork)
Title: Reduced signalling threshold activation of existing segwit deployment
Author: James Hilliard
Status: Draft
Type: Standards Track
Created: 2017-05-22
License: BSD-3-Clause
 CC0-1.0 
==Abstract==
This document specifies a method to activate the existing BIP9 segwit
deployment with a majority hashpower less than 95%.
==Definitions==
"existing segwit deployment" refer to the BIP9 "segwit" deployment
using bit 1, between November 15th 2016 and November 15th 2017 to
activate BIP141, BIP143 and BIP147.
==Motivation==
Segwit increases the blocksize, fixes transaction malleability, and
makes scripting easier to upgrade as well as bringing many other
[https://bitcoincore.org/en/2016/01/26/segwit-benefits/ benefits].
This BIP provides a way for a simple majority of miners to coordinate
activation of the existing segwit deployment with less than 95%
hashpower. For a number of reasons a complete redeployment of segwit
is difficulty to do until the existing deployment expires. This is due
to 0.13.1+ having many segwit related features active already,
including all the P2P components, the new network service flag, the
witness-tx and block messages, compact blocks v2 and preferential
peering. A redeployment of segwit will need to redefine all these
things and doing so before expiry would greatly complicate testing.
==Specification==
While this BIP is active, all blocks must set the nVersion header top
3 bits to 001 together with bit field (1<<1) (according to the
existing segwit deployment). Blocks that do not signal as required
will be rejected.
==Deployment==
This BIP will be deployed by a "version bits" with an 80%(this can be
adjusted if desired) activation threshold BIP9 with the name
"segsignal" and using bit 4.
This BIP will have a start time of midnight June 1st, 2017 (epoch time
1496275200) and timeout on midnight November 15th 2017 (epoch time
1510704000). This BIP will cease to be active when segwit is
locked-in.
=== Reference implementation ===
// Check if Segregated Witness is Locked In
bool IsWitnessLockedIn(const CBlockIndex* pindexPrev, const
Consensus::Params& params)
{
LOCK(cs_main); return (VersionBitsState(pindexPrev, params, 
Consensus::DEPLOYMENT_SEGWIT, versionbitscache) ==
THRESHOLD_LOCKED_IN);
}
// SEGSIGNAL mandatory segwit signalling.
if ( VersionBitsState(pindex->pprev, chainparams.GetConsensus(),
Consensus::DEPLOYMENT_SEGSIGNAL, versionbitscache) == THRESHOLD_ACTIVE
&&
 !IsWitnessLockedIn(pindex->pprev, chainparams.GetConsensus()) && 
// Segwit is not locked in
 !IsWitnessEnabled(pindex->pprev, chainparams.GetConsensus()) ) // 
and is not active.
{
bool fVersionBits = (pindex->nVersion & VERSIONBITS_TOP_MASK) == 
VERSIONBITS_TOP_BITS;
bool fSegbit = (pindex->nVersion & 
VersionBitsMask(chainparams.GetConsensus(),
Consensus::DEPLOYMENT_SEGWIT)) != 0;
if (!(fVersionBits && fSegbit)) { return state.DoS(0, error("ConnectBlock(): relayed block must 
signal for segwit, please upgrade"), REJECT_INVALID, "bad-no-segwit");
} 
}
https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/compare/0.14...jameshilliard:segsignal-v0.14.1
==Backwards Compatibility==
This deployment is compatible with the existing "segwit" bit 1
deployment scheduled between midnight November 15th, 2016 and midnight
November 15th, 2017. Miners will need to upgrade their nodes to
support segsignal otherwise they may build on top of an invalid block.
While this bip is active users should either upgrade to segsignal or
wait for additional confirmations when accepting payments.
==Rationale==
Historically we have used IsSuperMajority() to activate soft forks
such as BIP66 which has a mandatory signalling requirement for miners
once activated, this ensures that miners are aware of new rules being
enforced. This technique can be leveraged to lower the signalling
threshold of a soft fork while it is in the process of being deployed
in a backwards compatible way.
By orphaning non-signalling blocks during the BIP9 bit 1 "segwit"
deployment, this BIP can cause the existing "segwit" deployment to
activate without needing to release a new deployment.
==References==
*[https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2017-March/013714.html
Mailing list discussion]
*[https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/blob/v0.6.0/src/main.cpp#L1281-L1283
P2SH flag day activation]
*[[bip-0009.mediawiki|BIP9 Version bits with timeout and delay]]
*[[bip-0016.mediawiki|BIP16 Pay to Script Hash]]
*[[bip-0141.mediawiki|BIP141 Segregated Witness (Consensus layer)]]
*[[bip-0143.mediawiki|BIP143 Transaction Signature Verification for
Version 0 Witness Program]]
*[[bip-0147.mediawiki|BIP147 Dealing with dummy stack element malleability]]
*[[bip-0148.mediawiki|BIP148 Mandatory activation of segwit deployment]]
*[[bip-0149.mediawiki|BIP149 Segregated Witness (second deployment)]]
*[https://bitcoincore.org/en/2016/01/26/segwit-benefits/ Segwit benefits]
==Copyright==
This document is dual licensed as BSD 3-clause, and Creative Commons
CC0 1.0 Universal.
original: https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2017-May/014380.html
submitted by dev_list_bot to bitcoin_devlist [link] [comments]

[bitcoin-dev] User Activated Soft Fork Split Protection

This is the best tl;dr I could make, original reduced by 78%. (I'm a bot)
Github.io/) for the SegWit2x agreement being too slow to activate SegWit mandatory signalling ahead of BIP148 using BIP91 I would like to propose another option that miners can use to prevent a chain split ahead of the Aug 1st BIP148 activation date.
Comments-URI: Status: Draft Type: Standards Track Created: 2017-05-22 License: BSD-3-Clause CC0-1.0 ==Abstract== This document specifies a coordination mechanism for a simple majority of miners to prevent a chain split ahead of BIP148 activation.
Motivation== The biggest risk of BIP148 is an extended chain split, this BIP provides a way for a simple majority of miners to eliminate that risk.
This BIP starts immediately and is a BIP8 style soft fork since mandatory signalling will start on midnight August 1st 2017 regardless of whether or not this BIP has reached its own signalling threshold.
Rationale== Historically we have used IsSuperMajority() to activate soft forks such as BIP66 which has a mandatory signalling requirement for miners once activated, this ensures that miners are aware of new rules being enforced.
As we approach BIP148 activation it may be desirable for a majority of miners to have a method that will ensure that there is no chain split.
Summary Source | FAQ | Feedback | Top keywords: BIP148#1 BIP#2 miner#3 signalling#4 SegWit#5
Post found in /Bitcoin, /Bitcoin, /btc and /BitcoinAll.
NOTICE: This thread is for discussing the submission topic. Please do not discuss the concept of the autotldr bot here.
submitted by autotldr to autotldr [link] [comments]

[uncensored-r/Bitcoin] [Megathread] On August 1, 2017 at 6:12pm UTC (block 478559), a new altcoin called Bcash (BCH) has...

The following post by BashCo is being replicated because some comments within the post(but not the post itself) have been silently removed.
The original post can be found(in censored form) at this link:
np.reddit.com/ Bitcoin/comments/6r05nm
The original post's content was as follows:

What is happening?

In what has been touted as the culmination of a multi-year scaling debate, on August 1, 2017 at 6:12pm UTC (block 478559) a new altcoin was created from Bitcoin. The new altcoin is known as "Bcash" (BCH) or "Bitcoin Cash" (BCC) depending on which wallet/exchange you ask. In order to avoid confusion with actual Bitcoin and other altcoins, we recommend readers refer to the new altcoin as "Bcash" (BCH).
As with all altcoins, Bcash is technically off-topic for the /Bitcoin subreddit. However, Bcash was created based on Bitcoin's transaction history, and therefore all Bitcoin owners should be able to retrieve an equal amount of Bcash with some effort. Your Bitcoins are just as safe as they were before the chain split, but you should take care not to compromise your private keys if you wish to retrieve Bcash. This is not urgent unless you wish to trade immediately. If you choose to retrieve your Bcash, please be aware that consolidating your UTXOs will impact your privacy on both chains.
In order to help readers navigate this confusing situation and minimize disruption of relevant content, /Bitcoin has dedicated this sticky thread where readers can ask questions or leave comments pertaining to Bcash. If you are wondering how to retrieve your new altcoin holdings, please read the discussion thoroughly as your questions may already have been answered. If you don't see a similar question, please be sure to mention your wallet method and preferred exchange so that other readers can help address your concerns. You are also invited to submit new threads to the /Bcash subreddit if you so choose.
If you would like to understand the motives behind this new altcoin, please read The Future of “Bitcoin Cash:” An Interview with Bitcoin ABC lead developer Amaury Séchet.
A Beginner’s Guide to Claiming Your “Bitcoin Cash” (and Selling It) is a must-read for anyone feeling particularly lost.

But I thought we avoided a chain split?

For those of you who thought we avoided a chain split with the activation of BIP91 a couple weeks ago, here's a very loose summary of what happened on the Segwit (BIP141, BIP148, BIP91) front:
  1. Bitcoin Core team deployed Segwit (BIP141) last year
  2. Miners refused to activate Segwit via BIP9
  3. Users deployed UASF (BIP148 by shaolinfry) to require Segwit (BIP141) signaling by August 1st
  4. Miners activated BIP91 (by James Hilliard) on July 20th in response to UASF (BIP148)
  5. BIP91 complied with UASF (BIP148) by enforcing Segwit (BIP141) signaling ahead of August 1st
  6. Segwit BIP141 is expected to lock in on Tuesday, August 8th
  7. Segwit BIP141 is expected to activate on Monday, August 21st
  8. BIP148 activated successfully without any chain split
  9. Another altcoin called "SegWit2x" (B2X) may be created later this year, similar to Bcash but with less safety precautions regarding replay protection
Despite all the progress we're making in scaling Bitcoin both on-chain and off-chain, the Bcash crew has decided to part ways with the Bitcoin project by creating a new altcoin. The key differences are that they are attempting to gut Segwit from their forked client, as well as increasing the deprecated max_block_size attribute to 8MB.

Various Announcements:

Electrum 1 - Electrum 2 - Trezor - Ledger - Coinbase - Breadwallet - Bitfinex - Airbitz - Blockchain.info - Exodus - Jaxx - Kraken - Bittrex - Greyscale - Yobit - Bitcoin Core - Bitstamp - [Mycelium]() - [GreenAddress]() - BitcoinTalk - (Reply in comments to add other services)

/Bitcoin wishes Bcash a happy farewell and the best of luck in their new venture!

submitted by censorship_notifier to noncensored_bitcoin [link] [comments]

James Hilliard‏: I've proposed a soft fork that can be used by miners to prevent a chain split ahead of BIP148

This is the best tl;dr I could make, original reduced by 78%. (I'm a bot)
Github.io/) for the SegWit2x agreement being too slow to activate SegWit mandatory signalling ahead of BIP148 using BIP91 I would like to propose another option that miners can use to prevent a chain split ahead of the Aug 1st BIP148 activation date.
Comments-URI: Status: Draft Type: Standards Track Created: 2017-05-22 License: BSD-3-Clause CC0-1.0 ==Abstract== This document specifies a coordination mechanism for a simple majority of miners to prevent a chain split ahead of BIP148 activation.
Motivation== The biggest risk of BIP148 is an extended chain split, this BIP provides a way for a simple majority of miners to eliminate that risk.
This BIP starts immediately and is a BIP8 style soft fork since mandatory signalling will start on midnight August 1st 2017 regardless of whether or not this BIP has reached its own signalling threshold.
Rationale== Historically we have used IsSuperMajority() to activate soft forks such as BIP66 which has a mandatory signalling requirement for miners once activated, this ensures that miners are aware of new rules being enforced.
As we approach BIP148 activation it may be desirable for a majority of miners to have a method that will ensure that there is no chain split.
Summary Source | FAQ | Feedback | Top keywords: BIP148#1 BIP#2 miner#3 signalling#4 SegWit#5
Post found in /Bitcoin, /Bitcoin, /BitcoinAll and /btc.
NOTICE: This thread is for discussing the submission topic. Please do not discuss the concept of the autotldr bot here.
submitted by autotldr to autotldr [link] [comments]

Multi-Stage Merge-Mine Headers Hard-Fork BIP | James Hilliard | Feb 24 2016

James Hilliard on Feb 24 2016:
https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/pull/340
BIP: ?
Title: 2016 Multi-Stage Merge-Mine Headers Hard-Fork
Author: James Hilliard
Status: Draft
Type: Standards Track
Created: 2016-02-23
==Abstract==
Use a staged hard fork to implement a headers format change that is
merge mine incompatible along with a timewarp to kill the previous
chain.
==Specification==
We use a block version flag to activate this fork when 3900 out of the
previous 4032 blocks have this the version flag set. This flag locks
in both of the below stages at the same time.
Merge Mine Stage: The initial hard fork is implemented using a merge
mine which requires that the original pre-fork chain be mined with a
generation transaction that creates no new coins in addition to not
containing any transactions. Additionally we have a consensus rule
that requires that ntime be manipulated on the original chain to
artificially increase difficulty and hold back the original chain so
that all non-upgraded clients can never catch up with current time.
The artificial ntime is implemented as a consensus rule for blocks in
the new chain.
Headers Change Stage: This is the final stage of the hard fork where
the header format is made incompatible with merge mining, this is
activated ~50,000 blocks after the Merge Mine Stage and only at the
start of the 2016 block difficulty boundary.
==Motivation==
There are serious issues with pooled mining such as block withhold
attacks that can only be fixed by making major changes to the headers
format.
There are a number of other desirable header format changes that can
only be made in a non-merge mine compatible way.
There is a high risk of there being two viable chains if we don't have
a way to permanently disable the original chain.
==Rationale==
Our solution is to use a two stage hard fork with a single lock in period.
The first stage is designed to kill off the previous chain by holding
back ntime to artificially increase network difficulty on the original
chain to the point where it would be extremely difficult to mine the
2016 blocks needed to trigger a difficulty adjustment. This also makes
it obvious to unupgraded clients that they are not syncing properly
and need to upgrade.
By locking in both stages at the same time we ensure that any clients
merge mining are also locked in for the headers change stage so that
the original chain is dead by the time the headers change takes place.
We timewarp over a year of merge mining to massively increase the
difficulty on the original chain to the point that it would be
incredibly expensive to reduce the difficulty enough that the chain
would be able to get caught up to current time.
==Backward Compatibility==
This hardfork will permanently disable all nodes, both full and light,
which do not explicitly add support for it.
However, their security will not be compromised due to the implementation.
To migrate, all nodes must choose to upgrade, and miners must express
supermajority support.
==Reference Implementation==
TODO
original: http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2016-February/012457.html
submitted by dev_list_bot to bitcoin_devlist [link] [comments]

How Many Bitcoin Should You Be HODLING?? Bitcoin At $1 Million By 2020 Is Still Possible And Might ... Will Bitcoin Rebound in 2019? The Bull vs. Bear Case Ex-Facebook Executive & Early Bitcoin Maximalist SPEAKS THE TRUTH! Cryptocurrency Stimulus News! Financial Markets Price Meltdown [2020] - Bitcoin Was Made ...

— James Hilliard (@james_hilliard) February 12, 2019. However, a Twitter user under the nickname @00whiterabbit modeled the attack, which allowed him to replace the payment address, turn off the device, and even completely replace the software. Despite the fact the hacker needs to go through a firewall, there is a risk of S15 attack. Developer James Hilliard, perfect recognized for his Bitcoin Improvement Proposal #91 (the BIP which activated SegWit and avoided SegWit2x) and the CGMiner program, came upon a vulnerability in Bitmain’s Antminer S15 firmware. The vulnerability was once then become an exploit by way of an nameless safety researcher. Hilliard has publicly demonstrated the exploit in motion: @BITMAINtech ... 24 7 Bitcoin. Bitcoin News Search. 1 News -24 7 News -24 7 Bitcoin -1 Search. Search for: “Nutty.” No, developer James Hilliard isn’t describing his lunch. Rather, that’s his choice of description for Segwit2x, the controversial technical roadmap announced by bitcoin’s startups and miners in May, ... Hard forks require — there’s a lot more things that can go wrong essentially there,” explained James Hilliard, a bitcoin mining ... front page of Bitcoin and online privacy news on the ... “Nutty.” No, developer James Hilliard isn’t describing his lunch. Rather, that’s his choice of description for Segwit2x, the controversial technical roadmap announced by bitcoin’s ...

[index] [21531] [3127] [28966] [3135] [13698] [32881] [30403] [7247] [17332] [27564]

How Many Bitcoin Should You Be HODLING??

Best-selling author and former hedge fund manager James Altucher is not backing down from his $1-million-dollar bitcoin call that he boldly made back in 2017... Onecoin promised the world, but only proved to be a trail of destruction. --- About ColdFusion --- ColdFusion is an Australian based online media company ind... meltdown -30% for bitcoin?!! DUMP?!! ⚠️ Crypto Analysis TA Today & BTC Cryptocurrency Price News Now - Duration: 23:21. Crypto Kirby Trading 14,444 views BREAKING: Chamath Palihapitiya who is a former Facebook Executive and MAJOR BITCOIN EARLY INVESTOR and Maximalist talks with CNBC and tells the TRUTH as to what SHOULD happen with the market and ... Financial markets are melting down, Bitcoin was made for this, Alex from Nugget's New joins me to break down stocks, gold, oil, interest rates, and yes Bitco...

#