The rule is to follow the strongest chain, i.e., the chain that contains the most work is considered the one the entire network should follow (the chain of truth). If a new chain appears that differs in several of blocks (even up to 20/30; maybe 100), it is not that significant problem; the network will switch to that new, stronger chain. However, what would happen if an entirely new chain starting from the genesis block appeared with more computational power than the current one? According to the rules, we should follow the strongest (the new) chain, and all nodes that don't do so would be considered invalid. But would the network really switch to this new chain? It is right to make the transition, but if it was done completely, everyone would lose their money in Bitcoin, people would lose confidence in the network, and it would completely collapse.

Therefore, in theory, and what is correct is to transition to the stronger chain, but would it really be done?

I'm not asking for predictions about the future or someone telling me what would happen in hypothetical scenarios, but I assume that people who have been involved in Bitcoin for over 5/10 years have thought about this, and discussions on this topic might have taken place in the Bitcoin community (conferences, forums, informal conversations, etc.). I expect there have been conclusions drawn from these discussions.

  • 1
    Sounds very similar to bitcoin.stackexchange.com/q/75733/101498. Basically if someone can rewrite the whole history since the genesis block then yes Bitcoin would become uninteresting. Jan 13 at 12:46
  • Does this answer your question? Potential fork from genesis block using enormous computational power Jan 13 at 16:18
  • @RedGrittyBrick Mike D just wrote how that is possible only in theory. I know that. I am interested in whether such a (theoretical) scenario was discussed in the Bitcoin community and what we would do then. One of the solution (mentioned by noone392) is to ignore fork (ignore last blocks hash). However, in my opinion, that would not solve anything, because a new last block can be made on top of n-1 th block.
    – Qwerty M3
    Jan 13 at 16:50
  • @AntoinePoinsot Yes, I think so too. However, I was interested in what the more experienced "Bitcoin people" think about this topic.
    – Qwerty M3
    Jan 13 at 16:53
  • While not the same question, I think my answer in Antoine's link covers it. It's certainly the case that a very deep reorg is very damaging, but if it were to happen, then the assumptions that make PoW secure are just broken and there is little to be done. Jan 13 at 21:11


Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service and acknowledge you have read our privacy policy.