Take the 2-minute tour ×
Bitcoin Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for Bitcoin crypto-currency enthusiasts. It's 100% free, no registration required.

Let's say someone creates a blockchain fork starting from the genesis block, when the difficulty was absurdly low compared to today; then he starts mining new blocks from there up to the current block index.

Normally, this would require such an amount of time to make it completely impossibile to catch up with the real blockchain; even if he used today's powerful mining hardware, the difficulty increase would compensate for it quickly. But, here's the catch: he customizes his mining software to not ever increase the difficulty, even if it's mining hundreds of blocks per second; block timestamps are simply faked in order to make it seem they were generated at ~10 minutes interval.

When the fake blockchain is longer then the real one (currently ~300000 blocks), he starts broadcasting it; it appears to conform to all rules, and it's longer than the current one, thus all clients and miners treat this as a winning fork and switch to working on it. Of course, difficulty increases abruptly as soon as the full network hashing power is thrown at it, and after some time block generation resumes normal levels.

But now the creator of the fake blockchain owns all Bitcoins that have been generated from the genesis block to when he released it.

Is this scenario actually possible? If not, why? How would Bitcoin nodes reacts to a 300000-blocks-long fork? Is there a limit on how long a fork can be?

share|improve this question
"he customizes his mining software to not ever increase the difficulty" This would make the blocks incompatible with standard Bitcoin clients. –  Tim S. May 7 at 16:31
Not if the blocks have fake timestamps which make it seem like they were generated about every 10 minutes; that generation rate would not trigger a difficulty increase. When the full fake blockchain is released, it would seem like it was generated by a constant amount of hashing power which never required increasing the difficulty. –  Massimo May 7 at 18:09
Hm, I suppose you're right, with one big catch: in order to get 300,000 blocks generated every 10 minutes with constant (low) difficulty and forged timestamps, you'd need the total time period to be longer than the real blockchain's time period. This causes problems, but as Nate points out, it's the difficulty that's the real criteria, not the length, so it's irrelevant. –  Tim S. May 7 at 18:49

1 Answer 1

up vote 5 down vote accepted

There are two problems with this:

  • The "longest" block chain is selected not by total number of blocks, but by total difficulty. A chain with a large number of low-difficulty blocks would not win.

  • The Bitcoin reference client hard-codes the hashes of a relatively recent block as a "checkpoint" and will reject any chain not containing that block at the correct height. So any chain that diverges before the checkpoint will be ignored.

share|improve this answer
Great, exactly the answer I was looking for :) –  Massimo May 7 at 14:55

Your Answer


By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.