3 ms·

Right, but that necessitates that people actually do believe two sides of a given split chain to be interchangeable. That's not the case for Bitcoin and Bitcoi

Right, but that necessitates that people actually do believe two sides of a given split chain to be interchangeable. That's not the case for Bitcoin and Bitcoin Cash; they may have a shared transaction history in their ledgers up to the point where their chains split, but after the split there is no way to turn BTC into BCH or otherwise reconnect the chains. Accordingly: > Had it not been, had both sides insisted on branding themselves as "Bitcoin", then it would be a lot less clear which side's claim to the name was legitimate. The clarity would come from whichever chain a majority of the network adopts. Rogue chains calling themselves "Bitcoin" happen all the time; they're short-lived because they fail to attract consensus that they're the "one true chain".

lisper 4y ago
> Rogue chains calling themselves "Bitcoin" happen all the time That's news to me. Reference?
- yellowapple 4y ago
  It's inherent in Bitcoin (like any other blockchain) being distributed; not every node is going to immediately recognize every transaction/block in the same order, and chains frequently diverge for a block or two. Usually they sort themselves out and regain consensus pretty quickly (via the so-called "longest chain rule"), which is why it ain't exactly newsworthy. Also happens as a consequence of the node implementations being actively developed: any sufficiently-drastic change in a node's software produces such a split, wherein you end up with two chains calling themselves "Bitcoin": one consisting of the nodes which upgraded, and one consisting of the nodes which didn't. The latter is usually short-lived, but sometimes things get... messy: https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/blob/master/bip-0050.mediawiki https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/blob/master/bip-0050.mediawi...
  - lisper 4y ago
    Oh, right, I remember that now. That was essentially a rental attack that happened by accident, and it was mitigated by the fact that no one was actually trying to exploit it. I think Bitcoin dodged a bullet that day. But that was ten years ago. Has anything even remotely similar happens since then? (Other that the bitcoin-cash split, of course, which was done intentionally.)

lisper 4y ago

> Rogue chains calling themselves "Bitcoin" happen all the time That's news to me. Reference?

yellowapple 4y ago
It's inherent in Bitcoin (like any other blockchain) being distributed; not every node is going to immediately recognize every transaction/block in the same order, and chains frequently diverge for a block or two. Usually they sort themselves out and regain consensus pretty quickly (via the so-called "longest chain rule"), which is why it ain't exactly newsworthy. Also happens as a consequence of the node implementations being actively developed: any sufficiently-drastic change in a node's software produces such a split, wherein you end up with two chains calling themselves "Bitcoin": one consisting of the nodes which upgraded, and one consisting of the nodes which didn't. The latter is usually short-lived, but sometimes things get... messy: https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/blob/master/bip-0050.mediawiki https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/blob/master/bip-0050.mediawi...
- lisper 4y ago
  Oh, right, I remember that now. That was essentially a rental attack that happened by accident, and it was mitigated by the fact that no one was actually trying to exploit it. I think Bitcoin dodged a bullet that day. But that was ten years ago. Has anything even remotely similar happens since then? (Other that the bitcoin-cash split, of course, which was done intentionally.)