Uniquely identifying forked chains

Uniquely identifying forked chains
[not found] ` <CAL7-sS3CaHvZxUb-Q6HagHYufYnko_T4TBoFhd31rr5OxaiAEw@mail.gmail.com>

  2015-08-28 20:15     ` Matt Whitlock
  
From: gladoscc @ 2015-08-28 15:27 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: bitcoin-dev

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 963 bytes --]

There has been discussion of using the genesis block hash to identify
chains in BIP 21 (bitcoin:// URI scheme). However, this does not allow
identification between blockchain forks building upon the same genesis
block. While many see this as undesirable, I think it is inevitable that
this will eventually happen at some point, and think it is best to build
systems redundantly.

I propose identifying blockchains for BIP 21 and any other relevant needs
through:

1) the genesis block hash for a new chain, or
2) a hash of the genesis block hash,  concatenated with block hash(es) of
fork point(s) for a fork chain

This would support forks, forks of forks, forks of forks of forks, etc
while preserving a fixed length chain identifier.

If a user wants to specify "whatever chain is the longest with PoW", they
would use (1). In times where multiple chains are coexisting and being
actively mined, a user can use (2) to specifically identify a chain.

Thoughts?

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 1085 bytes --]

 permalink raw reply	[|nested]
2015-08-28 15:27   ` [bitcoin-dev] Uniquely identifying forked chains gladoscc

  2015-08-28 20:45       ` Jorge Timón
  
From: Matt Whitlock @ 2015-08-28 20:15 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: gladoscc;  bitcoin-dev

Why would you use a hash of hashes? Wouldn't it be simpler and just as effective to use either:

1) the genesis block hash, or
2) the block hash of the first block in a fork?

Every block hash in a chain implicitly subsumes the genesis block hash of that chain, so there's no need to incorporate the genesis block hash again.


On Saturday, 29 August 2015, at 1:27 am, gladoscc via bitcoin-dev wrote:
> There has been discussion of using the genesis block hash to identify
> chains in BIP 21 (bitcoin:// URI scheme). However, this does not allow
> identification between blockchain forks building upon the same genesis
> block. While many see this as undesirable, I think it is inevitable that
> this will eventually happen at some point, and think it is best to build
> systems redundantly.
> 
> I propose identifying blockchains for BIP 21 and any other relevant needs
> through:
> 
> 1) the genesis block hash for a new chain, or
> 2) a hash of the genesis block hash,  concatenated with block hash(es) of
> fork point(s) for a fork chain
> 
> This would support forks, forks of forks, forks of forks of forks, etc
> while preserving a fixed length chain identifier.
> 
> If a user wants to specify "whatever chain is the longest with PoW", they
> would use (1). In times where multiple chains are coexisting and being
> actively mined, a user can use (2) to specifically identify a chain.
> 
> Thoughts?


 permalink raw reply	[|nested]
2015-08-28 20:15     ` Matt Whitlock

  
From: Jorge Timón @ 2015-08-28 20:45 UTC ( / )
  To: Matt Whitlock;  Bitcoin Dev

On Fri, Aug 28, 2015 at 10:15 PM, Matt Whitlock via bitcoin-dev
<bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
> Why would you use a hash of hashes? Wouldn't it be simpler and just as effective to use either:
>
> 1) the genesis block hash, or

If it's a new chain, we're talking about a "spinoffs"
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=563972.0

> 2) the block hash of the first block in a fork?

Yes, this seems like the best solution in the schism hardfork case.
What both sides of a schism hardfork would want is to avoid hurting
bystander users who can't tell the difference between the old and the
new currency/chain.

I should extend BIP99's section on schism hardforks.
Anybody else is welcomed to propose changes to the BIP draft, just PR
to this branch:

https://github.com/jtimon/bips/tree/bip-forks

> Every block hash in a chain implicitly subsumes the genesis block hash of that chain, so there's no need to incorporate the genesis block hash again.
>
>
> On Saturday, 29 August 2015, at 1:27 am, gladoscc via bitcoin-dev wrote:
>> There has been discussion of using the genesis block hash to identify
>> chains in BIP 21 (bitcoin:// URI scheme). However, this does not allow
>> identification between blockchain forks building upon the same genesis
>> block. While many see this as undesirable, I think it is inevitable that
>> this will eventually happen at some point, and think it is best to build
>> systems redundantly.
>>
>> I propose identifying blockchains for BIP 21 and any other relevant needs
>> through:
>>
>> 1) the genesis block hash for a new chain, or
>> 2) a hash of the genesis block hash,  concatenated with block hash(es) of
>> fork point(s) for a fork chain
>>
>> This would support forks, forks of forks, forks of forks of forks, etc
>> while preserving a fixed length chain identifier.
>>
>> If a user wants to specify "whatever chain is the longest with PoW", they
>> would use (1). In times where multiple chains are coexisting and being
>> actively mined, a user can use (2) to specifically identify a chain.
>>
>> Thoughts?
> _______________________________________________
> bitcoin-dev mailing list
> bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation.org
> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev