Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Bitcoin Cash Starts Trading

trustnodes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 93 posts

Re: Bitcoin Cash Starts Trading

#41

Post by encryptThrow32 »

stale2002 wrote: post #38
encryptThrow32 wrote: post #30

The dangers of tx replay mean that HF's like this can never be safe. Beware those that would tell you that these forks are safe, they are not. This is another scam from those that would try to usurp the blockchain. You will be able to replay original bitcoin and abc tx's on each chain, unless you opt-in to some funny new untesed hash. This will hugely disrupt the minority chain ABC, as the mempools on cash chain fill…

Uhh, protecting your transactions against replay attacks in Hard Fork scenarios like this is a solved problem. There are a multitude of ways to split your coins, so that they are separate, and you don't risk selling the other chain when you don't mean to.

Solved, maybe, but apparently not in this case as the replay mitigation's are opt-in.

What would stop someone replaying a regular tx from core chain if this network accepts either replay protected or not tx's?

Re: Bitcoin Cash Starts Trading

#42

Post by stale2002 »

encryptThrow32 wrote: post #41
stale2002 wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Uhh, protecting your transactions against replay attacks in Hard Fork scenarios like this is a solved problem. There are a multitude of ways to split your coins, so that they are separate, and you don't risk selling the other chain when you don't mean to.

Solved, maybe, but apparently not in this case as the replay mitigation's are opt-in. What would stop someone replaying a regular tx from core chain if this network accepts either replay protected or not tx's?

Apparently it is 1 way protection.

So the answer is that if you spend a transaction on Core, yes, it can be stolen on the BCC chain.

Your core chain coins aren't stolen, though.

But it is safe on the BCC chain. The only people who get screwed are the main chain people, and NOT the BCC chain supporters/users.

So it is actually the opposite of what the original comment was claiming. It is MORE safe to be on the BCC chain, and LESS safe on the main chain, because the protection is 1 way.

Also, apparent segwit is not going to be activated on it, so that means that main chain segwit transactions can be stolen.

This is actually really clever, and is borderline adversarial development.

What this means is that miners on the BCC chain will be able to steal coins from segwit transactions on the main chain, and thus this would strongly incentivize BCC mining, while screwing over segwit supporters.

The people who it is "unsafe" for is Core and Segwit supporters, lol!

Re: Bitcoin Cash Starts Trading

#43

Post by zkSNARK »

hudon wrote: post #25
curyous wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

FYI, a network with 1000x more on-chain transactions, that everyone uses, is much more difficult to censor, than one that requires bank-like organisation with IOUs to the main chain.

Two problems with your argument: 1- You imply that only one camp wants to scale. Actually, both camps want to scale. The only difference is that the "big blocks" camp do not think a user's ability to validate the blockchain is worth keeping. 2- The size of the network is irrelevant to the government's ability to censor transactions. The only thing that stops them from having power over the network is decentralization…

You are either lying or misinformed. The "big block camp" absolutely does think a user's ability to validate the blockchain is worth keeping. This is why proposals that scale blocks according to Moore's law have been created. This is also why proposals exist which allow flexible block sizes based on need.

You are also ignoring the fact that for most of bitcoin's existence, block sizes were soft limited by miners as appropriate. With soft limited or flexible block sizes, just because big blocks are used sometimes when transaction volume is high does not mean that we will see gigabyte block sizes every 10 minutes for all of time.

The root of the debate is that small blockers have conveniently chosen to ignore the reality that markets and market participants can regulate themselves.

In the small blocker's mind, keeping the power in the user's hands means making bitcoin so expensive that the only people who can use it directly are banks and governments that offer sidechain connections to other networks. They blather on about decentralization while the reality is they are the ones creating centralization.

It is a questionably convenient choice for small blockers because it forces centralization to things that aren't actually bitcoin which is the most logical desire of governments or other bodies who wish to subvert bitcoin.

Re: Bitcoin Cash Starts Trading

#44

Post by vgb2k11 »

DougN7 wrote: post #29
hudon wrote: post #20

A fork like Bitcoin Cash will be a boon for the blockchain community. There is a pretty big subset of the community that believe Bitcoin is a panacea that will replace currencies, payment networks and so on, regardless of how technically inferior the blockchain is to other more mature distributed databases and networks. They believe one day, the blockchain will be just as efficient or even more so. This subset is voc…

Thank you for your explanation. This is the best description of WHY there is such a battle going on that lay people like me can grok :)

But its still the wrong explanation. Think about it:

(i) Miners, not average users, hold the voting power.

(ii) When the 1 MB block-size is congested (like it is now), miners make significantly more money on transaction fee's.

(iii) Increasing the block-size increases supply and reduces demand for priority processing in the block, hence, reduces transaction fee's.

Which explanation truly matches your view of reality here. People (miners) are motivated by "A shared vision" or a dollar in the bank account? Look at it closer (quote from parent comment):

>

> "larger blocks means more resources required to transmit, validate and store blocks and if you cannot validate blocks, then you are trusting transaction validators (miners)"

>

Can you see the problem with the explanation now? Its written from the view of an end user (of bitcoin), not a miner. But its miners who vote on the fork, hence, the above quoted text is mostly irrelevant to understanding the "WHY" of the fork battle.

Re: Bitcoin Cash Starts Trading

#45

Post by kanzure »

stale2002 wrote: post #42
encryptThrow32 wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Solved, maybe, but apparently not in this case as the replay mitigation's are opt-in. What would stop someone replaying a regular tx from core chain if this network accepts either replay protected or not tx's?

Apparently it is 1 way protection. So the answer is that if you spend a transaction on Core, yes, it can be stolen on the BCC chain. Your core chain coins aren't stolen, though. But it is safe on the BCC chain. The only people who get screwed are the main chain people, and NOT the BCC chain supporters/users. So it is actually the opposite of what the original comment was claiming. It is MORE safe to be on the BCC cha…

> The only people who get screwed are the main chain people, and NOT the BCC chain supporters/users.

Sounds like definitely adversarial behavior to me, not "borderline". They have the opportunity to write secure opt-out (on-by-default) replay protection-- like by choosing a new address prefix (etc)--, and they choose not to.

Your "steal segwit coins" scenario wont work when the transaction tree is tainted by post-fork coinbase outputs.

Re: Bitcoin Cash Starts Trading

#46

Post by ithought »

vgb2k11 wrote: post #44
DougN7 wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Thank you for your explanation. This is the best description of WHY there is such a battle going on that lay people like me can grok :)

But its still the wrong explanation. Think about it: (i) Miners, not average users, hold the voting power. (ii) When the 1 MB block-size is congested (like it is now), miners make significantly more money on transaction fee's. (iii) Increasing the block-size increases supply and reduces demand for priority processing in the block, hence, reduces transaction fee's. Which explanation truly matches your view of reality…

Can you elaborate further?

When Mike Hearn quit bitcoin (Jan 2016), he wrote the Chinese miners were worried about bitcoin getting too popular because of their limited access to the Internet. And said they were actively trying to supress its popularity. But obviously that isn't true now?

https://blog.plan99.net/the-resolution-of-the-bitcoin-experi...

Re: Bitcoin Cash Starts Trading

#47

Post by stale2002 »

kanzure wrote: post #45
stale2002 wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Apparently it is 1 way protection. So the answer is that if you spend a transaction on Core, yes, it can be stolen on the BCC chain. Your core chain coins aren't stolen, though. But it is safe on the BCC chain. The only people who get screwed are the main chain people, and NOT the BCC chain supporters/users. So it is actually the opposite of what the original comment was claiming. It is MORE safe to be on the BCC cha…

> The only people who get screwed are the main chain people, and NOT the BCC chain supporters/users. Sounds like definitely adversarial behavior to me, not "borderline". They have the opportunity to write secure opt-out (on-by-default) replay protection-- like by choosing a new address prefix (etc)--, and they choose not to. Your "steal segwit coins" scenario wont work when the transaction tree is tainted by post-for…

Hmm? The steal segwit coins senario would work as follows:

1. Person A does a segwit transaction and sends coins to the anyone-can-spend output on the main chain. These coins aren't really "anyone can spend" because segwit stops invalid transactions.

2. The transaction gets replayed on the BCC chain. Segwit transactions work by sending via the anyone can spend output, but since segwit is not activated on BCC, the thefts aren't blocked, and any-can-spend really DOES mean anyone-can-spend instead of meaning segwit.

Or am I misinterpreting how it works?

I thought that segwit uses the anyone-can-spend output in order to be backwards compatible. That means that legacy nodes, or unupgraded nodes that don't have segwit, are perfectly fine will "theft" transactions.

A legacy fork, that does not have segwit activated, would thus be able to replay segwit transactions, but instead of being segwit transactions they would just be normal, anyone can spend transactions that can be stolen.

Anyways, yeah it is adversarial development.

But the other side was planning on doing the same kind of stuff, with User Activated Soft Fork, and POW changes. User activated soft fork threatens the other side with theft by doing a Wipeout of the other chain.

This stuff could have been solved much earlier if Core just compromised and merged the 4MB blocksize increase.

Re: Bitcoin Cash Starts Trading

#48

Post by PeterisP »

taysic wrote: post #40
h1d wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The reason is not because of the vision. Also if anyone thinks about it as a replacement of paypal/visa, they know scaling via increased block size is not going to cut it. 7tx/s doen't do much good if scaled linearly. It was a flaw in the Bitcoin specification that there was a conflict of interest between miners and users that when more blocks are filled, the more fee the miners get, thus miners have no incentive to…

"7tx/s doen't do much good if scaled linearly" Why not? Bitcoin Cash may be more vocal in the Chinese miner community but there are plenty of Americans who believe in it too. The storage issue both chains will have to deal with if they are used in any big capacity

Because solutions that are practical for getting 2x or 10x the capacity aren't sufficient, since getting used in big capacity requires a vision that can give a thousandfold increase, and increasing the block size can't ever provide that in a practical manner.

If you want to scale a huge cliff, going to fetch a 20 feet ladder will not help you.

Re: Bitcoin Cash Starts Trading

#49

Post by kanzure »

stale2002 wrote: post #47
kanzure wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The only people who get screwed are the main chain people, and NOT the BCC chain supporters/users. Sounds like definitely adversarial behavior to me, not "borderline". They have the opportunity to write secure opt-out (on-by-default) replay protection-- like by choosing a new address prefix (etc)--, and they choose not to. Your "steal segwit coins" scenario wont work when the transaction tree is tainted by post-for…

Hmm? The steal segwit coins senario would work as follows: 1. Person A does a segwit transaction and sends coins to the anyone-can-spend output on the main chain. These coins aren't really "anyone can spend" because segwit stops invalid transactions. 2. The transaction gets replayed on the BCC chain. Segwit transactions work by sending via the anyone can spend output, but since segwit is not activated on BCC, the the…

> Or am I misinterpreting how it works?

I had mentioned specifically post-fork coinbase output taint; if it's tainted, there's no way to replay, that's in fact one of the proposed replay protection mechanisms (unfortunately it's of the "opt-in" variety).

Re: Bitcoin Cash Starts Trading

#50

Post by stale2002 »

hudon wrote: post #20

A fork like Bitcoin Cash will be a boon for the blockchain community. There is a pretty big subset of the community that believe Bitcoin is a panacea that will replace currencies, payment networks and so on, regardless of how technically inferior the blockchain is to other more mature distributed databases and networks. They believe one day, the blockchain will be just as efficient or even more so. This subset is voc…

Kind of.

You are correct that segwit2X is a hard fork, and therefore the other side could potentially stop it from happening.

But the thing is that it is already established that it is possible to do a blocksize increase via a soft fork. Segwit itself is literally a blocksize soft fork.

So if the hard fork fails, the big blockers could instead just blocksize soft fork instead of hard fork.

The war won't be over if segwit2X fails. That is the beginning, not the end, of the real Bitcoin civil war that will happen.

Post reply on HN