Topic: Does anyone remember when Bitcoin was hard forked? - page 2. (Read 2164 times)
Not all hard fork necessarily heal, there are currently 3 full-time developers working on Bitcoin, if this monetary system would be developed by say, Oracle, with +200 programmers working on it fulltime we wouldn't have that risk.
It was March 11, 2013. Details here:
https://bitcoin.org/en/alert/2013-03-11-chain-fork
Price dropped ~25%, but then recovered within a day.
https://bitcoin.org/en/alert/2013-03-11-chain-fork
Price dropped ~25%, but then recovered within a day.
Indeed I do remember it quite well. It was handled in a good manner.
The switch to LevelDB in Bitcoin Core 0.7.0 exposed an implementation limit in BerkeleyDB, which older versions were using. This caused new nodes to accept blocks that older nodes were rejecting due to database transaction failures. This caused a hard fork in the block chain. The response of the Bitcoin community was to downgrade miners to 0.6.* until a patch could be prepared for 0.7.1 to artificially reject blocks with a large number of transaction inputs, until the old nodes with the deficient database implementation could be phased out.
The most recent Bitcoin hard fork was right when bitcoin's price really started taking off. It actually ended up acting as a confidence boosting event I think since the way it was handled was good.
Forks are short-term emergencies for sure. They can result in large losses due to orphaned blocks individuals and companies may accept transactions from, but which don't "actually" transfer in whatever becomes accepted as the majority consensus protocol.
This is generally temporary and only affects transactions of a few minutes or hours -- a fork should usually only be a transition to new rules, and companies and individuals should know the network is effectively unsafe until consensus for the fork is established (ideally, this would all be readied before-hand, where everything can switch over in one block). A more problematic situation would come from competing chains which have competitive hashpower (and/or clients following different rules), where there's basically no consensus because the community's relatively evenly fractured. Since cryptocoins operate on consensus, lack of consensus clearly breaks it - it'd be "forking" back and forth - and Bitcoin business would effectively have to entirely shut down until a dominating consensus can be re-established.
Let's say there's a chain ("new Bitcoin") competing with "old Bitcoin." Let's say it was a rule change which needed a fork, and a large portion of users and miners are protesting by not switching to the new client/protocol. The rule differences will likely cause these chains to be incompatible with each other, where each will reject many or most transactions from the other protocol. If half of users and miners use old, and half use new, variance is going to "randomly" cause the "real" blockchain to go back and forth between old and new, and there'll be great uncertainty over which will eventually be the majority consensus chain, meaning transactions should NEVER be accepted as valid. There'll be this uncertainty until one side begins to dominate, which is the only time when transactions should be considered valid again. This uncertainty would effectively shut down everything Bitcoin.
Devs are currently discussing forking Bitcoin for various protocol changes. There's nothing wrong with this, and devs will be very cautious. It will take months or even a year from the Core team coming forward with the proposal for it to actually be implemented, and if there's wide disagreement, the fork will likely not happen since it'd threaten Bitcoin itself if people refuse the fork.
That's my understanding of it, anyway... fair chance I'm misinformed -- sorry if so.
This is generally temporary and only affects transactions of a few minutes or hours -- a fork should usually only be a transition to new rules, and companies and individuals should know the network is effectively unsafe until consensus for the fork is established (ideally, this would all be readied before-hand, where everything can switch over in one block). A more problematic situation would come from competing chains which have competitive hashpower (and/or clients following different rules), where there's basically no consensus because the community's relatively evenly fractured. Since cryptocoins operate on consensus, lack of consensus clearly breaks it - it'd be "forking" back and forth - and Bitcoin business would effectively have to entirely shut down until a dominating consensus can be re-established.
Let's say there's a chain ("new Bitcoin") competing with "old Bitcoin." Let's say it was a rule change which needed a fork, and a large portion of users and miners are protesting by not switching to the new client/protocol. The rule differences will likely cause these chains to be incompatible with each other, where each will reject many or most transactions from the other protocol. If half of users and miners use old, and half use new, variance is going to "randomly" cause the "real" blockchain to go back and forth between old and new, and there'll be great uncertainty over which will eventually be the majority consensus chain, meaning transactions should NEVER be accepted as valid. There'll be this uncertainty until one side begins to dominate, which is the only time when transactions should be considered valid again. This uncertainty would effectively shut down everything Bitcoin.
Devs are currently discussing forking Bitcoin for various protocol changes. There's nothing wrong with this, and devs will be very cautious. It will take months or even a year from the Core team coming forward with the proposal for it to actually be implemented, and if there's wide disagreement, the fork will likely not happen since it'd threaten Bitcoin itself if people refuse the fork.
That's my understanding of it, anyway... fair chance I'm misinformed -- sorry if so.
it doesn't matter.
Bitcoin has hard forked twice. I was not around for the first one, but I panicked during the second.
I saw that Vericoin was hard forked in response to a successful attack on Mintpal's system and I remember seeing somewhere that Bitcoin was hard forked once. I'm too new to Bitcoin to remember the circumstances, so could someone fill me in on the details?
BAM:
http://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/1a51xx/now_that_its_over_the_blockchain_fork_explained/
I saw that Vericoin was hard forked in response to a successful attack on Mintpal's system and I remember seeing somewhere that Bitcoin was hard forked once. I'm too new to Bitcoin to remember the circumstances, so could someone fill me in on the details?
Jump to: