Topic: What if someone revise source? (Read 261 times)

haha you are right.

But what if that coin passed successful ICO and start like 1$ per coin, and if enlisted to some exchanges?

Relax, mate.
No one will attack your coin.
There is no point, really.
Lots of POW altcoins are launched daily and no one attacks them because there's really no point to.
Why would anyone waste hashpower they'd rather use to mine a profitable coin to attack a new and unknown coin?

Thanks. Situation seems be more cleared in mind.


I concerned because I think I will launch new coin.
Then for block this, I should delay upload source to github?

A 51% attack doesn't necessarily need 51% of nodes to work.
51% attack needs more hashrate than the rest of the miners combined.

Even if you change the bitcoin source code and compile it, you'll still need to get people to install it which would be a very uphill task.
Also, if your revised bitcoin node does not follow the bitcoin nodes consensus rules, it will most likely be IP banned by other nodes it attempts to pair (peer)  to.
Any node software that does not follow the bitcoin consensus rules is NOT a bitcoin node, and it will form its own network.
For example, if your revised version attempts to spend more coins than inputs, the transaction will not be rejected by the nodes it relays the transaction to and the transaction will not be relayed to other nodes, therefore any node running your version of the software will form their own network different from the Bitcoin network.

After the first block reward halving from 50BTC to 25BTC in 2012, some miners patched their software to keep mining blocks with 50BTC block reward but the other nodes in the network just rejected the transactions and didn't relay it.
That is what will happen if your software changes any bitcoin consensus rules without you having majority of the node support.

It's possible, yes, but what would be the point?

I thought if someone (has bad intent) revise bitcoin source and compile, and if he maintain 51% of total computing power, then he wins and his revised source take bitcoin name?

Of course this can't be happen now because he can't get 51% of total computers installed bitcoin?

Then, how about early started new coin's case?

Some big guy can take over new coins with over 51% computing power?

What do you mean by "What happen if someone revise bitcoin source and launch it as like bitcoin"? That somebody may launch a "bitcoin wallet" on another website or through social media, and it's rigged to steal coins? Sure this can be done and has already happened, but it's just a matter of trusting the wallet and the page you got it from - it's just like a banking trojan, not really a danger for Bitcoin, just for people who are not careful about the software they use.

if you were to fork it with malicious intents and wouldnt even change the name so that you could confuse as many people as possible exchanges just wouldnt add your coin and it would be useless

If you don't trust the website from which you download Bitcoin Core, you can check the source code for yourself before compiling it.

Yes already I know bitcoin cash and others.

They are fine because name is different and people see it as different coin.

My question is how can we block bad hacker's revision to bitcoin source itself and pretend that is legitimate source revision?

Someone already revised the source and they are Bitcoin Cash and Bitcoin Gold. You cannot prevent this from happening since Bitcoin is a permissionless system. It will not impose the way central banking imposes on all banks. Besides almost every single alt coins are revised and recompiled version of Bitcoin.

You mean like a fork?
Bitcoin is open source software and anyone can fork it. This has been done many times over the years. Most times they change the name so people don't confuse it for bitcoin.
Unlike the recent spate of forks heralded by BCash where Roger and his cult are claiming it's the "original blockchain", the real bitcoin and Satoshi's vision ™>

We try to educate newbies not to fall for sure can tricks.

There have been forked coins whose sole intent was to steal private keys and hence bitcoins through their Trojan wallet.
The general rule of thumb for claiming forked coins is to send your bitcoin out of that wallet to one with a new private key before importing it into the fork wallet and treating that private key as compromised.


Code updates on the bitcoin core repo on GitHub, BIPs, etc.


The users running nodes do ultimately.
When there's to be a radical change its discussed by the Devs on the IRC (it's public and anyone can join), if the idea has been discussed and developed properly then there's a Bitcoin Improvement Proposal (BIP) where the idea is fleshed out in detail with a proof of concept usually.
Before it's merged to the repo

1. How bitcoin system can block bad intent sources?

What happen if someone revise bitcoin source and launch it as like bitcoin?

If he has intend that he will take some bitcoin?


2. How bitcoin system can adopt legitimate improvement, changes of sources?

There is many volunteers developers to bitcoin sources, continuously updated bitcoin sources.

Who decide adoption of changes and how it can be spread to normal bitcoin system users worldwide?