BU dev team scheint es ja echt drauf zu haben. hier ein paar auszüge aus dem oben zitierten reddit link:
(find ich voll gruselig, ich würde wohl eher komplett aussteigen, als solche experimente mitzumachen. fühle mich bei core viel sicherer aufgehoben.)
[–]belcher 34 Punkte vor 12 Stunden*
Looks like someone created a 'block' larger than 1MB.
https://live.blockcypher.com/btc/block/000000000000000000cf208f521de0424677f7a87f2f278a1042f38d159565f5/The blockcypher website seems to be patched to display invalid blocks. No other blockchain explorer website has a record of that block hash.
The same thing is happening right now that would happen if any miner tried to mine more than 12.5 bitcoins. It would be rejected by the bitcoin economy, the full nodes of the exchanges, marketplaces and any OTC trader would reject these bitcoins in the same way that a careful goldsmith rejects fool's gold.
That proof-of-work was worth just over 13.2173 bitcoins or $12,000 at current prices. Which Roger just wasted, apparently believing his own 'Bitcoin Unlimited' propaganda. Since bitcoin.com is only a pool, the hash power was provided by many other people. Lots of little BU-supporting hashers who just got their time and money wasted by the pool's decisions.
Yes indeed, once you've found a valid proof-of-work you can't change the block data without invalidating it.
BU's problem was creating a block bigger than 1mb before trying to solve the proof-of-work.
[–]marcus_of_augustus[🍰] 21 Punkte vor 9 Stunden
Actually it is much worse than that. All the hashing power bitcoin.com has spent working on any blocks over 1MByte at any time in the past has also been worthless, i.e. wasted.
[–]coinjaf 14 Punkte vor 8 Stunden
This.
Had there been a real attack by an adversary then BU would NOT have helped to protect the network. In fact they would have HELPED the attackers.
I have no idea how much hashing power is on BU but if it's for example 10% then a 51% attack on Bitcoin would actually only need (100% - 10%) * 51% = 45% where BU would have happily assisted the attacker, so the attacker would only really need to bring 35% of himself.
Doing a 33% attack would have been laughably easy where the attacker only need like 20%
Thanks a lot /u/memorydealers
I love how their buggy code also refers to the max blocksize constant as "blockstream core", this same change resulted in BU clients being banned and the orphaned BU block being replaced by one signaling for segwit.
[–]nullc 48 Punkte vor 10 Stunden
yea, there is a bunch of insulting, sloppy, and unprofessional stuff in there. E.g. hey were also copying improvements from the Bitcoin project and changing the attribution information to try to insult me.
So, what does this mean for the rest of miners who are running BU? Is the potential of losing mined blocks prevalent?
[–]FluxSeer 21 Punkte vor 11 Stunden
If they are using BU 1.0.0 that just came out, yes. There is a bug in BU that caused other nodes to reject this block.
[–]polsymtas 2 Punkte vor 10 Stunden
so another bug in BU made it not so bad?
[–]GratefulTony 20 Punkte vor 11 Stunden
yes. until they release a patch. A pro dev team would already have confirmed this, and start working on/ already released the fix. It's not clear whether the BU devs really get how the code works-- so any fixes which may or may not come out in the coming hours should be popcorn fodder for sure.
[–]Seccour [Bewertung versteckt] vor 6 Stunden
No. A pro dev team would have test their software before releasing it.
