Topic: Binance talked about a "re-org" What is a re-org? how does that work with BTC? (Read 289 times)

actually they were so serious about the re-org and the roll back that they even contacted miners (bitmain, thinking they control bitcoin!) they rejected their request bluntly and possibly even laughed at them so they "pulled it off" after failing at their silly attempt.

Maybe im wrong, but reading a lot of things about, i think re-org is based on :

   1 - i dont know how, but first you identify the main nodes, used to generate snapshot of others nodes.
      If you run a node btc on you machine, you will clone all data from 'main nodes' , first maybe this guy
      found this main nodes.  i think bitcore nodes, https://coin.dance/nodes

  2 - going to data stored, this guy will try delete a  'blockData' from this main nodes.
  3 - after that run some new nodes pointing to clone from this guys
  4 - create nodes diferents from others already running, when others old nodes try sync, they will got the new information without this 'blockTransaction',
  5 -  and so, maybe, this reorg will able to resync all network and done..

 You can think a lot of problems on this way, found the main nodes, edit the core data, developers to do this job, people concert about "crash" bitcoin network, and a lot of problems inside that, ethical and technicals...

Im a tech guy, maybe im wrong.. if others tech guys here want discuss, lets talk.

I think they wanted to attempt a "re-org" with the help of miners and quickly realized that it would cause more harm than good if they pulled it off. Just imagine if they acquired enough support from miners to do this and they execute a "re-org" successfully. This will rock the investor confidence in Bitcoin to it's core and people will abandon this experiment, if the miners could pull that off.

Exchanges should just take some insurance out to cover instances like this or to cover some of the losses if this happens. We are dealing with very skilled hackers here and exchange software are prime targets for exchange that has large hot wallets. 

The fact that a centralized exchange CEO thinks that it is reasonable to potentially take action to ruin the reputation and integrity of our leading decentralized cryptocurrency that he has got rich off (but has nothing to do with) is pathetic.

If you successfully take actions to 'reverse' Bitcoin blocks it stops being Bitcoin - and becomes nothing.

An exchange just lets you swap coins. It is nothing and can be replaced by the more than 200 other exchanges out there. Binance needs to show humility and respect to cryptocurrencies that have given them so much.

Binance got robbed, and they need to cop it on the chin, improve their security, and stop looking for 'solutions' that  would destroy what makes cryptocurrency - cryptocurrency.

Once a transaction is made through the blockchain, its too late to get it back and thats the way it needs to be.

You raise a good point, but I disagree that there is a significant difference. The difference is gradual, not qualitative.

In both scenarios, we have a party that has "power" because of the amount of coins it holds. In one case (Ethereum) Vitalik Buterin and his foundation, and in the other case (Bitcoin) an exchange owner.

An exchange can become dominant in the ecosystem even if there is no centralized fundraising model (like ETH had), as Mt. Gox showed us. Mt. Gox, with hundreds of thousands of coins, if it still was alive, would have had a similar power to dump coins on the other chain and sending its price to the bottom, than Vitalik Buterin had in the ETH/ETC conflict. So it would have the power to censor transactions, like Binance proposed.

The consequence is that the Bitcoin community must be wary to not give too much power to a single entity like an exchange. Currently we are more decentralized than Ethereum and your point is valid. However, that is not something set in stone.

In simple words, Re-org is creating a new chain by replicating the required block from the older one and invalidating the generation of remaining but, to do this they need to dent the Bitcoin “decentralized” network which can be a risk eruption for many chains and even after it, does Bitcoin network will be safe? and how would Binance/CZ incentivize and gather the miners/mining pool to reorg the chain?

It is just a dumb idea from CZ where he thought it was just a easy process like they did with ETH to have a roll back with bitcoin too and he took his idea to some major players in the mining industry and they explained to him that it is a dumb idea that cannot be executed and his confidence even though there was a major hack and to come up with the idea of a roll back in bitcoin is funny enough to question his understanding of the bitcoin network  .

Well first I think you should edit your post to include roll back of bitcoin network .. Now the Roll back mechanism based on my finding is a way to set back transactions made on the blockchain...The Roll back mechanisms is an idea that frustrates the school of thought that blockchain should remain immutable in order to maintains it integrity.. The Roll back mechanism can only be instituted by obtaining 51% of the mining power of the blockchain and lastly n my opinion is not something to be considered on a large established network like bitcoin. I won't be surprised if the Binance chain institutes something like that though...

I can't believe they even suggested that.

"pros: 1 we could "revenge" the hackers by "moving" the fees to miners; 2 deter future hacking attempts in the process. 3. explore the possibility of how bitcoin network would deal with situations like these."

I mean, anybody here thinks that money will be given to miners. Also, what is the limit of that? 1m $ hack is enough for rollback or 10? And i am not talking about how impossible to make a rollback.

It is not a good option. Roll back means invalidating all the tranasaction after the hack.  If I am not mistaken, this means a fork to the original chain.  a 51% attack branching to a fork (please correct me if I am wrong).  Though if there is a possible way to roll back without compromising block mined and other transaction after that timestamp then that is a good way to go but I think there is none.  

Well to me it sounded like an Ethereum style hard forking into undoing the blockchain. GIANT no no. And it appears Jeremy is involved in that proposal, or at least was consulted about it, not even sure...

Re org is a pretty euphemism. Bitcoin would lose its credibility if people agreed-ed to do that...

Al transactions are FINAL. That is the whole point. You don't fix your world problems within Bitcoin, go after the criminals not the software which is working as intended.

This reminds me of the difference from Justice and "Social" Justice. The first is fair and impartial (which is why its represented blind), the second isn't. In the second, if someone is poor then somehow deserves more leniency than someone rich. Law is either the same for everyone or its meaningless. And boy could humans make an act an appear miserable when in reality are filthy rich. Or you get a Druglord that actually invests in improving social conditions for his people, Pablo Escobar actually did that in Colombia, but it was on top of dirty money. "Robin Hood" tactics to gain support...

Basically social justice is injustice justified by political reasons.

It is an injustice someone was stolen 40million, therefore lets bend the rules just for once for this pretty please? Where does this end? How about the endless people within this very forum who were stolen money by phishing, malware or their lack of discipline handling money?

This is why Ethereum forked, the people behind Ethereum didn't got this, which is why it never regained trust ever again. Once you bend rules, you can always bend them again... Same thing as politicians and fiat money. "Lets print some money to balance the budget just this time", next you see, you get another Venezuela, Zimbabwe, etc... The VERY reason Bitcoin exists, to prevent that from ever happening again.

---

This is perhaps its biggest design flaw, the fact that it allowed it shows its possible to do it again on a whim. Within Bitcoin, you have to convince more than half the node/miners, and, well, you all remember the big blocks/segwit drama stuff... Most altcoins have weakness like these, which is the main reason they never come on top.

people keep mentioning ethereum when it comes to the crazy tweets of Binance but they are missing the big difference here. although the fork itself would be the exact same thing (a roll back that removes an important feature from the coin that does it) but the difference is that bitcoin (unlike ethereum) is decentralized. so there is no owner to flip a switch and force a fork, there is no owner with 75 million premine coins to be able to dump the other chain and force people to sell the other coin and switch to their fork,... if such fork happens, it will be like all the hundreds of forks that happened over the last two years and will create a shitcoin doomed to die.

I copy paste the words from the image:


It means, they don't pursue reorganization approach, that is what I can see from the words.
What is re-org?
We are only guessing those words and we don't know about that, and it's better you ask CZ what it means so you know and you can tell us

Actually, the point is clear. CZ is not interested in the market and / or the good of Bitcoin. Just looking for the way out of money stolen from him. I can't say it's wrong, but it doesn't need to do any work that threatens the whole market.

Whitepaper MTI style says one portion of what bitcoin is yet handwritten? Going to hand write that language. What there is to talk verbatim to bitcoin so to speak MTI style !

“Reorganization rappelling ‘fifty rupees to one dollar!’”

Legend: MTI refers to Massachusetts Institute of Technology

It is not a good idea at all. It would prove that Binance is so big that it can manipulate bitcoin and can control bitcoin. It is more likely that it would just result in two competing chains  which would split the hashrate, reduce the market cap (split the current market cap between two competing coins & maybe even lose total market cap).

The hacker would still own the coins on the "other chain". It has already been done with Ethereum and Ethereum classic. (Forked / rolled back to recover the DAO stolen funds.)

It has a fractured split community and two coins. Ethereum initially lost a lot of market cap. It would probably be cheaper for every bitcoin holder to donate a % of their bitcoin rather than slaughter the bitcoin price.

With the bitcoin community it could also result in the miners initially going for the reward and then later switching back to the old chain.

It would then become known as the privatized Binance chain. CZ realised the consequences of such an action and wisely dismissed it.

This can be a good option though I am doubting if this can be done now just for the sake of Binance. Maybe this can be the best time that the whole industry talk about this so that we are open for the possibility of finding solutions in case of a big hack. I am looking forward to the time when there is a set of rules and standards in dealing with this menace of the cryptocurrency industry as this will not be the last time that hackers can successfully get in and steal coins from a big exchange. In fact, am sure that with the money that hackers now have they are planning for more bigger quests soon.

those transactions would be included on the reorged blockchain.


miners and services are free to do what they will as rational actors. a reorg is 100% compatible with the bitcoin protocol, so while i don't like idea of a mutable blockchain, i was never so naive to believe it was immutable. the honesty of miners is only ensured by rational economic incentive---block rewards. if you offer miners a large enough economic incentive to mine dishonestly, well, don't be surprised if they take the offer.

i think people are getting too hung up on the idea of immutability. bitcoin is not immutable.


people keep raising this ethical dilemma. maybe i'm crazy, but i see it differently. it's nothing like the DAO fork, which was a hard fork that broke rules of the original blockchain. a reorg, by comparison, is 100% compatible with bitcoin.

as i see it, we should always assume miners will double spend or otherwise attack the network if doing so will net more BTC than honest mining. to me, this would be just another blockchain reorganization.

i think people are getting too hung up on ethical principles which are completely out of their control. bitcoin is permissionless and free markets are free. like it or not, miners are not securing the chain out of the goodness of their hearts. it's all about the benjamins.

reorg or not, the outcome would be good for bitcoin. because bitcoin simply is.

Is that re-org = reorganize? the only thing that comes up to my mind is they would reorganize their system and as they have stated those hackers revealed the weak spots of their platform. I don't know if the hacking event that occurs is true or just staged for more publicity over the crypto space but there is one thing I remember, whenever there is a malicious movement of funds on the Binance trading platform they would immediately stop any kinds of transactions and withdrawals are stopped but these hackers have successfully penetrated their system without them noticing the mysterious movement of funds and that's a big question for me.

That's correct there's nothing they can do to get back the hacked Bitcoin unless they trace those thieves who stole it but it needs time and manpower to trace it, especially if those hackers are really clever.

don't waste your time with what Binance is saying these days. they were careless, they got hacked, lost millions of dollars worth of bitcoin and it is over. there is no UNDO button in bitcoin and there never will be because bitcoin is decentralized and immutable with irreversible transactions and nobody will ever accept this type of roll-back they are begging for these days like the drowning man they are clinging to anything they can.