I've been contacted by someone who had an interesting problem, and shows a potential danger of shitcoin cloning that I've never before seen discussed.
BTCS address generated. BTC sent from BTC wallet to BTCS address. BTC accepts this address into the blockchain because BTCS is so heavily cloned that it uses the same schema. Nobody has the privkey associated with the address that now exists in the BTC blockchain.
It should be possible to export the BTCS privkey from the BTCS wallet and then import it into the BTC wallet, and poof, access to the lost coins. But, is the party who possesses that BTCS privkey willing? Will they just import it to their own wallet and say "Too bad, so sad!" Or worse, pretend it didn't work and keep it... I guess I can just monitor that address forever to see if it moves...
What potential scam quality would exist for pretending this scenario? Could something like this happen with DRK and an X11 shitcoin? Seems it could happen with any coin for which the proof schema is cloned.
Can Masternodes mitigate this by means of their hybridized proofing mechanism? Or if masternodes are cloned by the shitclone, too, would that also make it moot? Is there a way to make a dynamic proof in the hybridized proof system that would negate this even if the exact same schema is shitcloned? If so, that would be another really big win for masternodes/DRK/The Duffinator as this goofed TX would just fall out of the memory pool, or never be accepted to begin with, instead of the clusterfuck described above. Something temporally pseudo-randomized, or hashed against current block height to achieve same but disproving inter-blockchain stupidity since hash won't match...
At any rate, it shows just how little effort was put into BTCs proof method... It prevents false negatives, but not false positives.
Merkleroot will be different, so private key will be different. The coins are gone.BTCS address generated. BTC sent from BTC wallet to BTCS address. BTC accepts this address into the blockchain because BTCS is so heavily cloned that it uses the same schema. Nobody has the privkey associated with the address that now exists in the BTC blockchain.
It should be possible to export the BTCS privkey from the BTCS wallet and then import it into the BTC wallet, and poof, access to the lost coins. But, is the party who possesses that BTCS privkey willing? Will they just import it to their own wallet and say "Too bad, so sad!" Or worse, pretend it didn't work and keep it... I guess I can just monitor that address forever to see if it moves...
What potential scam quality would exist for pretending this scenario? Could something like this happen with DRK and an X11 shitcoin? Seems it could happen with any coin for which the proof schema is cloned.
Can Masternodes mitigate this by means of their hybridized proofing mechanism? Or if masternodes are cloned by the shitclone, too, would that also make it moot? Is there a way to make a dynamic proof in the hybridized proof system that would negate this even if the exact same schema is shitcloned? If so, that would be another really big win for masternodes/DRK/The Duffinator as this goofed TX would just fall out of the memory pool, or never be accepted to begin with, instead of the clusterfuck described above. Something temporally pseudo-randomized, or hashed against current block height to achieve same but disproving inter-blockchain stupidity since hash won't match...
At any rate, it shows just how little effort was put into BTCs proof method... It prevents false negatives, but not false positives.
If this is a loss, and it may well be, there seems to be an obligation on the part of shitclones that is being shirked, and shows even Satoshi made no effort... This could be a "wait for the memory pool to give it back" instead of a "your coins are lost, sucks to be you."
UPDATE:
MintPal says they get this problem all the time and that exporting the privkey from BTCS wallet and importing it to the BTC wallet DOES WORK.
We'll see what the person who lost his coins says. Mintpal says they won't proceed using me as a middle-man, which is 100% understandable. I'll have to wait until I hear back from the affected party.
This is a real eye opener...
