The man is claiming to be the inventor of Bitcoin and his latest moves involved sending legal notices to Ethereum’s founder Vitalik Buterin and …
You may recall that not too long ago, we reported that the whole crypto space seems to be having enough of Craig Wright’s speculation and major exchanges have begun delisting his token, BSV.
The man is claiming to be the inventor of Bitcoin and his latest moves involved sending legal notices to Ethereum’s founder Vitalik Buterin and podcaster Peter McCormack, according to the online magazine Investinblockchain.
Following an order issued by the US District Court of the Southern District of Florida, the self-proclaimed creator of Bitcoin, Wright has submitted a list of BTC addresses that are associated with a blind trust.
More in-depth analysis could prove whether or not Wright really is Satoshi Nakamoto, the creator of Bitcoin, as he’s been claiming to be for quite a while now.
Wright is involved in an ongoing court battle against the estate of his former business partner Dave Kleiman, the Tokyo-based Bitcoin researcher and software developer Kim Nillson of WizSec said that the redacted addresses are “not hard to guess,” as reported by the Daily Hodl.
Instead, he claims that “Wright just scraped the blockchain for early block reward beneficiaries and claimed those.”
WizSec says that if you “Take the list of the first 70 block reward addresses (excluding the Genesis block) and they line up perfectly with Wright’s redacted list. We can even make educated guesses for the other redacted text by typing up candidate text in a word processor with matched formatting and checking whether it lines up with the original document.”
There are no cryptographic signatures to support ownership
WizSec continues and says “What Wright does provide appears to be just a lazy copy-paste from the blockchain, without any cryptographic signatures to support his claims of ownership.”
So, it seems that things are not exactly going the way Wright was hoping. We’ll keep you posted on the subject.
At the time, however, the inventor of Ethereum, Vitalik Buterin disagreed and said “the incident opens up serious questions about the nature of the …
When Binance lost $40 million to hackers this week, the crypto community discussed reorganizing the chain after it was suggested by a developer from MIT. Many people were upset by this proposition, declaring that there was no way a coordinated effort with miners could be pulled off. However, most bitcoiners don’t seem to remember that a similar centralized decision was made in 2013, when Btc Guild’s hashrate was leveraged to downgrade the main chain from Bitcoin 0.8 to version 0.7.
Cryptocurrency advocates have been all riled up discussing a theoretical reorganization of the Bitcoin Core (BTC) blockchain. The conversation heated up after it was suggested by the developer Jeremy Rubin and Binance CEO Changpeng Zhao (CZ), who mentioned it after his exchange lost $40 million worth of BTC. Some people became extremely upset at the mere discussion of a reorganization and stated that there was no way it was possible. People have argued the subject for hours and have written long-winded posts filled with theories and calculations.
There are a couple of ways to trigger a blockchain reorganization, which occurs when the chain of recorded blocks is invalidated or orphaned by either a 51% attack or another method, forcing miners back to a point where they have to start again from a specific block height. It’s akin to rolling back a recorded history of transactions and then re-recording them again, but of course the new transactions would never be the same as the ones that were erased. If this technique was used, some believe the history of the Binance transaction which saw the loss of 7,000 BTC would be erased as well.
The Coordinated Effort to Roll Back to Bitcoin Version 0.7 in 2013
After all the discussions on social media concerning centralized entities possibly reorganizing the chain to erase the loss $40 million, it’s interesting to revisit the history books to see if there were any similar events back in the day. In March 2013, Arvind Narayanan described a similar situation where developers coordinated to get a large mining pool to revert the chain to prior software after an accidental fork took place. There was a severe issue with the compatibility between Bitcoin client 0.7 and version 0.8, which caused the main chain to fork into two. In fact, Narayanan detailed that a centralized decision was utilized to help find a solution.
After the crisis was assessed, BTC developers were introduced with an idea from Btc Guild which wrote: “I can single-handedly put 0.7 back to the majority hash power — I just need confirmation that that’s what should be done,” in a developer chat room. Pieter Wuille responded: “IMHO, that is what you should do, but we should have consensus first.” Narayanan’s paper underlined the centralization factor when he remarked: “So much for decentralization — The fact that Btc Guild can tip the scales here is crucial.”
“The hash power distribution at that time appears to be roughly 2/3 vs 1/3 in favor of the 0.8 branch, and Btc Guild controlled somewhere between 20% and 30% of total hash power,” the researcher noted at the time. “By switching, Btc Guild loses the work they’ve done on 0.8 since the fork started. On the other hand, they are more or less assured that the 0.7 branch will win and the fork will end, so at least their post-downgrade mining power won’t be wasted.”
Narayanan also stressed that if the hashrate was instead distributed among thousands of small independent miners, it would prove way more difficult to coordinate the effort. The paper describes how Btc Guild sacrificed their mining revenue for the good of the network. The author also hypothesized how developers would be able to convince another large pool operator if Btc guild didn’t believe it would win. After the plan was agreed upon by various developers, the alert notice was sent out which said: “URGENT: chain fork, stop mining on version 0.8.” In addition to the alert, Bitcoin Core developer Pieter Wuille told miners: “If you’re a miner, please do not mine on 0.8 code — Stop, or switch back to 0.7 — Btc Guild is switching to 0.7, so the old chain will get a majority hashrate soon.” After Narayanan summed up the events on how developers and Btc Guild fixed the situation, he explained his opinion that even though it was centralized it was the right decision.
Vitalik Buterin: ‘Incident Brings Forth Uncomfortable Facts About Bitcoin’s Notion of Decentralization’
At the time, however, the inventor of Ethereum, Vitalik Buterin disagreed and said “the incident opens up serious questions about the nature of the Bitcoin protocol and puts into the spotlight some uncomfortable facts about Bitcoin’s notion of ‘decentralization.’” Buterin also emphasized that the other aspect of Bitcoin’s decentralization that this incident called into question was that of mining pools. “The reason why the controlled switch to the 0.7 fork was even possible was that over 70% of the Bitcoin network’s hash power was controlled by a small number of mining pools and ASIC miners, and so the miners could all be individually contacted and convinced to immediately downgrade.”
So the question is, how does the BTC hashrate distribution look today in comparison to when Btc Guild was a dominant miner back in 2013? Today a 51% coordinated effort would take around five mining pools to work together as each of the dominant BTC pools have 10% or more of the global hashrate. The task would be extraordinarily expensive compared to doing this maneuver in 2013. But so-called experts shouting that a coordinated 51% reorganization couldn’t happen today, especially after a similar instance took place in 2013, are being very naive. Even Buterin concluded in his synopsis of the 2013 situation that people were worried about centralization after it happened.
In an op-ed on March 12, 2013, Buterin pondered: “Some worry, if a centralized core of the Bitcoin community is powerful enough to successfully undertake these emergency measures to set right the Bitcoin blockchain, what else is it powerful enough to do?”
What do you think about the similarities between the 2019 Binance discussion involving a reorganization and the March 2013 rollback? Let us know what you think about this subject in the comments section below.
Image credits: Shutterstock, Blockchain.com, Pixabay, Arvind Narayanan blog Freedom to Tinker, and Twitter.
Verify and track bitcoin cash transactions on our BCH Block Explorer, the best of its kind anywhere in the world. Also, keep up with your holdings, BCH, and other coins, on our market charts at Bitcoin.com Markets, another original and free service from Bitcoin.com.
On May 3, the developers behind the Bchd project, a Bitcoin Cash full node implementation written in Go (golang), announced… read more.
Jamie Redman is a financial tech journalist living in Florida. Redman has been an active member of the cryptocurrency community since 2011. He has a passion for Bitcoin, open source code, and decentralized applications. Redman has written thousands of articles for news.Bitcoin.com about the disruptive protocols emerging today.
Beijing-based crypto mining rig manufacturing giant, Bitmain, recently reported that its internal Bitcoin and Bitcoin Cash mining operations have …
Beijing-based crypto mining rig manufacturing giant, Bitmain, recently reported that its internal Bitcoin and Bitcoin Cash mining operations have generated 88% less computing power compared to a month ago. The major cutdown has been revealed by the company in its monthly hashing power disclosure.
As per the hashing power disclosure, on May 7th, the hash rate of all Bitcoin and Bitcoin Cash mining hardware which are running on the SHA265 chips has dropped significantly. Comparing on a monthly basis, the combined hash rate of the company was at 2,072 hashes per second (PH/s) which had fallen 88% to just 237.29 quadrillion PH/s.
Bitmain is pushing the edges of computing power by developing top-tier crypto mining chips. Bitmain is also the market leader in the development of integrated circuits specific to cryptocurrency mining and mining hardware under the Antminer brand. It also operates two of the largest crypto mining pools called Antpool.com and BTC.com.
Bitmain has started disclosing the monthly hash rate of the mining hardware it owns since July last year. checking out the hash report of that month available online, the hash rate was 1,692 PH/s that month, and then increased to 2,339 PH/s in October. In March, the company reported the figure dropped below 1,700 PH/s which was the result of a steep decline in Bitcoin price. However, it recovered slightly in April before falling down significantly. Bitmain’s stake on the Bitcoin network’s total computing power has also reduced to 0.4% from 4%.
Having all the hashing power coming from the more widely used AntMiner S9 (with each having a hash rate of 14 Tera hashes per second (TH/s)), the company has stopped operating more than 130,00 mining hardware to mine for itself. The cutback might also be the result of the new trend in China where miners have started relying more on cheap hydroelectric power. Bitmain is also planning to put $80 million worth of mining machines on work which will reportedly run on hydroelectric power.
Such a whopping decline in computing power doesn’t initially mean that the company has ceased all its mining equipment and shut down all or any operations. In contrast to Bitcoin, the hash rate of Bitcoin Cash network has been steady around 2,000 to 2,500 PH/s since early this year.
“It is [in the] natural course of the mining business where the hash rate owned by one body at one instant may be owned by someone else at another instant,” Bitmain spokesperson stated.
The Bitcoin community has reiterated the immutability of the Bitcoin project by dismissing the idea of soliciting consensus among Bitcoin mining pools …
The Bitcoin community has reiterated the immutability of the Bitcoin project by dismissing the idea of soliciting consensus among Bitcoin mining pools to re-org its blockchain.
The controversy was first sparked when Bitcoin core contributor Jeremy Rubin suggested to Binance CEO Changpeng ‘CZ’ Zhao that he may be able to coordinate a “decentralised” re-org to undo the theft of the recently hacked 7,000 BTC if CZ revealed the private keys of the hacked wallets that had their funds compromised.
@cz_binance if you reveal your private keys for the hacked coins (or a subset of them) you can decentralized-ly at zero cost to you, coordinate a reorg to undo the theft.
The Binance CEO revealed in a live AMA session (on the same day as the hack) that a re-org may potentially be viable, before later admitting that he would “not pursue the approach” to recover the stolen funds.
So how does it work?
In simple terms, the game theory compares the size of the breach (in this case 7,000 BTC) to the ongoing block reward that new miners receive for processing transactions on Bitcoin’s immutable layer. At the time of writing, miners collectively earn around 75 BTC an hour, or 1,800 freshly minted Bitcoins a day.
If the victim (Binance in this case) can incentive miners with a portion of the Bitcoin stolen to subsequently make up for the loss of block rewards earned since the hack, it may be economically feasible for the incident to be re-org’ed and the ‘hack’ transaction to be undone if the victim can gain consensus among all the major mining pools.
Social value in immutability is much higher
The approach was obviously rejected. I believe that the main factor was due to people realising that if the immutability in the Bitcoin blockchain is compromised, the value of the project and token could take an economic hit that far outweighs the potential gains from recovering a portion of the hacked funds.
Most mining pools have the interest of miners at heart, who in turn sit on hundreds of millions of dollars worth of mining hardware and have such a vested interest in the project that a blow to the immutability factor is just too dangerous.
Another factor to add to this is if the victim of the attack tries to gain consensus over miners, the hacker could also provide their own incentives (gained from the hack) to counter-incentivise the miners to do ‘nothing’.
Outrage across crypto Twitter and a “UASF-style” proposal
Just the mere mention of this idea seemed to spark a crypto Twitter storm, particularly among those who believe in the immutability of the Bitcoin blockchain and who wish to prevent this type of ‘attack’ on the sanctity of the BTC chain. It was also repeatedly mentioned that this approach has previously been rejected following other major exchange hacks that have compromised Bitcoin holdings.
Cypherpunk Adam Back went as far as to propose a “UASF-style re-org rejection code” to automate nodes to reject any such immutability attacks because the “game theory is complex, and it is easier for people to see a tool and explicit threat”.
“Hodlers and the ecosystem will run this if you try,” added the Blockstream CEO.
Another well-known Bitcoin evangelist, Andreas Antonopoulos, compared the idea of a re-org to recover exchange losses to a “bailout for a bank” that is “mismanaging risk”. He went on to point out that “it’s so hard to pull off and so likely to fail that unlike banks, there won’t be a bailout here.”
A reorg to recover exchange losses is like a bail-out for a bank mismanaging risk.
Fortunately, it’s so hard to pull off and so likely to fail that unlike banks, there won’t be a bailout here.
Bitcoin Satoshi Vision was formed as a result of a hard fork from Bitcoin Cash, which took place in November 2018. If you believe in the future of this …
Bitcoin Satoshi Vision was formed as a result of a hard fork from Bitcoin Cash, which took place in November 2018. If you believe in the future of this new altcoin, learn how to mine this digital currency in this brief guide.
What Is Bitcoin Satoshi Vision?
Bitcoin Satoshi Vision (BSV) is a digital currency, which was created toward the end of 2018 following a dispute within the Bitcoin Cash (BCH) community. A subset of the BCH community decided to split as a result of disagreements over the future of the protocol.
Named Bitcoin SV, the digital currency aimed to restore the specifications initially detailed by Bitcoin’s pseudonymous creator(s) Satoshi Nakamoto. The SV in the cryptocurrency’s name stands for Satoshi Vision, in an allusion to their intended end goal.
How to Mine BSV
Bitcoin Satoshi Vision utilizes the SHA-256 algorithm, which is the same algorithm that is employed in the Bitcoin network. As a result of the high number of people participating in these networks, it is no longer possible to gainfully participate in them as a miner with only a CPU or a GPU.
Hence, to begin mining, you must first purchase an ASIC (application-specific integrated circuit). ASICs are specialized machines designed to optimize the mining experience with the end result being to increase mining revenues. Given the electricity and mining pool costs, it does not make sense to mine SHA-256 coins, such as BSV, without an ASIC as this will definitely lead to overall losses. You can find a list of best ASIC mining rigs here.
Once you have decided on the ASIC that best suits your needs and specific circumstances (such as electricity costs in your area and the temperature in your region) and have purchased it, you are ready to begin mining BSV.
Plug the device in and follow the setup instructions as provided by the manufacturer. For most ASIC devices, this is a fairly straightforward procedure, carefully detailed by the manufacturer in easy-to-understand terms.
Joining a Mining Pool
Once you have set up your ASIC, it is imperative to join a mining pool. Mining pools help miners to better their chances of winning a block reward as it combines the computing power of all the devices connected to the pool. The best mining pool for Bitcoin SV is the SVPool.
Once you have registered and created an account on SV pool. You must now configure your account and set up your ASIC miners to be connected to the pool. Log in to your account and navigate to the dashboard. Click the ‘Create Worker Group’ button to configure your ASIC devices. Insert the name of your device. Set your server settings to those below.
To finish the process, you must then insert your wallet address in the space provided in the worker group section. Once you have done this and saved your details, you are now mining BSV.