15

One might think that the network maintaining the same consensus rules would be considered the original, and the project introducing a consensus rule change and thus creating a new network would be considered the derivative, but you've already pointed out an exception to that rule with the ETH DAO fork. Various arguments can be made why one or the other ...


4

Blockchain forks occur when two blocks are found at the same height. Only one of the two chaintips can become part of the best chain. Each full node will consider the first block it saw to be the best block for that height, until proven otherwise by another chaintip accumulating a greater total difficulty (i.e. adding another block). When another chaintip ...


3

(I don't think of this as a standard term, so the context was useful for me to figure out what this question was asking -- then I realized you're asking about a specific usage I have used regarding some p2p logic!) I've used the term "stale tip" in the context of Bitcoin Core's p2p logic to specifically refer to the case of our tip not having ...


3

Is there a way to find out which blk*.dat file contains a particular block? We can't tell you which of your *.dat files contains block 478558 because there is no requirement that different nodes store their data in the same way. Two installations of the same software (e.g. Bitcoin core) could have different blocks in a blk*.dat file of the same name. In ...


3

There is no way to explicitly know that your node is on a minority-hashrate fork because to do so would mean awareness of all the new rules that makes the majority-hashrate fork valid, and then determining that more proof-of-work is accumulated on that chain. For that to be possible, you must be running an upgraded node already. There are a few warning ...


3

Your observation is correct, except that a fork is expected to be activated by a supermajority of nodes and miners in the network. The most recent soft fork had an activation threshold of 950 blocks in specific segments of 1,000 blocks signaling readiness (95% hashrate) for the new rules. So, assuming that only 5% of the mining power don't follow the new ...


2

Is Fibre protocol deserved for rare temporary forking? If blocks are propagate that fast, there are less chances for temporary fork to happen and even if it do, they are short (small length)? Miner can fast continue to work on (what it seems to him) block head of the chain? Well the point is that a miner can more quickly switch to a new block that has been ...


2

All fork coins are tied to same private key. Simply import your private key to a multi-currency wallet like Exodus. This will unlock funds from all chains in one place.


2

During 2017 and 2018 there were a number of Bitcoin hard forks starting with Bitcoin Cash (BCH) but quickly followed by other altcoins (Bitcoin Satoshi Vision, Bitcoin Gold, Bitcoin Diamond etc). If you owned Bitcoin on the Bitcoin blockchain you would receive the same amount on these hard forked chains. As with the vast majority of altcoins, they relied on ...


2

As far as I'm aware, the newest graph mapping forkcoins which spun off from Bitcoin is Bitcoin Magazine's Map of Bitcoin forks infographic. It was published in April 2019, so it will not include newer forks like the upcoming BCH split. It does include the major project forks, but doesn't list all forks (there have been over 40 mostly irrelevant forkcoins). I ...


2

there was nothing to "prohibit" a miner from spending/stealing someone else's funds That was never true, so far as I know, miners have never been able to spend other people's funds seen in normal transactions with the right spending scripts. A more accurate description of the situation you describe is perhaps that there was nothing to prohibit ...


2

Soft fork and hard fork here, if you want to accurate, are statements about the conditions under which all nodes are guaranteed to eventually agree on the same chain. So it is about avoiding permanent forks, and the conditions to avoid them. Temporary splits are always possible, even when there is no consensus change at all. A consensus rule change is called ...


2

In my opinion block 398364 is the first BIP9 block. Block 370434 was signaling BIP101. As you say, BIP9 was not created at the moment and even if is was meant to signal BIP9, it would also signal csv and segwit which where not active at the time: https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/blob/master/bip-0009/assignments.mediawiki Block 398364 uses a BIP9 format to ...


1

It's valid but it's a miner writing wrong data, e.g. changing a transaction address to his own or changing a 3 btc transaction to 30 (while the wallet holds 50). The hashes are correct but the miner is using his position as miner to benefit himself or others Miners can't change that data in a transaction because that data is secured by the transaction-...


1

I am picking up 2 blockchains, one for BTC and BCH? There are a vast amount of numbers that are valid Bitcoin-addresses (BTC). Most of them have never been used and never will be. Many of these same numbers are also valid Bitcoin-cash addresses (BCH) because of the way Bitcoin Cash was created. So your address is a valid address in at least four different ...


1

If you have Zaza and BTC in one wallet it's suggested that you first send your BTCs away (because they're more precious and the BTC client is more trustworthy) then your Zazas so that the Zaza client can't steal your BTC.


1

No, there is no such problem. When BCH developers thought about introduction replay protection, they first agreed on the OP_RETURN-based one. Then they changed their minds and decided to use the better SIGHASH_FORKID-based one (see details about BCH replay protection). Their first replay protection wasn't removed. It expired with block 530,000. After that ...


1

In theory yes but the alien super computer would have to have hash power at an incredibly large multiple of the hash power pointed towards the Bitcoin blockchain today. According to blockchain.com today's network hash rate is around 130 million terahashes per second. If the alien super computer had more than this it could likely produce the next block with ...


1

Yes, since the amounts match across all four networks, it seems clear that most transactions must have happened before the forks—otherwise the amounts should diverge with the differing economic activity of various coins. In fact, it looks like most of the bitcoins on 1HQ3 were sent there in April 2013. When BCH and BTG spun off from Bitcoin, the new networks ...


1

How do we distinguish between BTC and BCH in an address? By looking at the post-fork BTC and BCH blockchain transaction-journals independently. What does this "the address also contains" really mean? They are saying that in both the BTC and BCH blockchain transaction-journals there were unspent transaction outputs associated with an address that ...


1

The paper you link to includes attacks on blockchain applications as "attacks on blockchain". Personally I would restrict "attacks on blockchain" to literal attacks on the underlying blockchain rather than applications built on top. Regardless there are a number of theoretical attacks on blockchains (51 percent, selfish mining etc) but I ...


1

I think the main thing you've missed is the problem GHOST set out to solve. It's first and foremost intended as a scalability/speed upgrade. We want to increase the size of each block and/or decrease the interval between blocks. Either of these would increase the ratio between propagation time and block interval. The higher the ratio is, the more we get that ...


1

Soft forks are generally used to upgrade an existing protocol in a backward compatible way. If you were to create a new coin you would need to hard fork the Litecoin protocol. How you do that depends on your motivation. If you just want to create a new coin to make money I would strongly advise against it. There are thousands of altcoins that have no unique ...


1

This block signaled support for BitPay's adaptive Block Size Proposal and was mined by slush pool. I asked slush this exact question on twitter back in 2016! https://twitter.com/slush_pool/status/744461234389524480 Note that this answer is not entirely complete, because the BitPay proposal specifies: Miners express their support for this BIP by setting the ...


1

Forks of both are equally hard. What you're describing as "Ethereum forks" are actually tokens/smart-contracts that run on the Ethereum network, which isn't very common on Bitcoin (but there's Omni) EDIT: Remved Rootstock as per darosior's clarification. Its only to relation to Bitcoin is that it uses merged mining, just like Namecoin.


1

Split chains can be seen as separate coins, except that a transaction with inputs valid in both chains (maybe a coinbase before the fork) would be valid in both. In that miner's chain, the miner can spend his coinbase. The rest of the nodes will see the transaction as invalid and ignore it, as his block isn't part of the main chain. If the miner wants, the ...


1

There will be no effect on those other chains since they are now independent of each other, the private key corresponding to your previous UTXO will still hold the same amount of coins at the time of their fork from bitcoin core. Here is what happen when you run -upgradewallet from: https://bitcoin.org/en/release/v0.17.0#upgrading-non-hd-wallets-to-hd-...


Only top voted, non community-wiki answers of a minimum length are eligible