New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Implement two-way replay protection #18

Closed
prusnak opened this Issue Sep 29, 2017 · 47 comments

Comments

Projects
None yet
@prusnak

prusnak commented Sep 29, 2017

This is necessary in order not to cause havoc.

Bitcoin Cash implemented this by using SIGHASH_FORKID and I recommend you doing the same, as it would be trivial to implement your coin into other wallets that already support Bitcoin Cash.

More info:

@leto

This comment has been minimized.

Contributor

leto commented Oct 4, 2017

Is the current plan to launch the mainnet on Nov 1st, even if this is not implemented? That seems dangerous.

@h4x3rotab

This comment has been minimized.

Contributor

h4x3rotab commented Oct 4, 2017

Work in progress. Reply protection is essential for the launch. In case there's anything wrong with it, the launch date could be postponed.

@leto

This comment has been minimized.

Contributor

leto commented Oct 4, 2017

@h4x3rotab awesome, thanks for clarifying that! People that work on other Equihash coins, like me, are rooting for y'all! Best of luck.

@bithernet

This comment has been minimized.

bithernet commented Oct 17, 2017

@h4x3rotab , have you implemented two-way replay protection? Did you implement it by using SIGHASH_FORKID like Bitcoin Cash?

Any docs?

@leto

This comment has been minimized.

Contributor

leto commented Oct 17, 2017

👍 to more docs about the exact method of providing 2-way replay protection

@drewdotpro

This comment has been minimized.

drewdotpro commented Oct 18, 2017

Less than a week away with no replay protection code pushed? Developers for wallets like Trezor will want to support Bitcoin Gold but can't start development until you show your replay protection implementation.

@ronaldobini

This comment has been minimized.

ronaldobini commented Oct 18, 2017

we here in Brazil just waiting it too.

@Paulnternet

This comment has been minimized.

Paulnternet commented Oct 18, 2017

It's might play out as a full on attack on the legacy chain. Choose a side and buckle up.

@prusnak

This comment has been minimized.

prusnak commented Oct 18, 2017

Remember it takes days/weeks to release a new firmware for hardware wallets with support for new coin, so don't keep major technical changes for later, if you want support.

@usefree

This comment has been minimized.

usefree commented Oct 20, 2017

So what? Still not solved? How YoBit is going to list it?

@h4x3rotab

This comment has been minimized.

Contributor

h4x3rotab commented Oct 20, 2017

In progress

@prusnak

This comment has been minimized.

prusnak commented Oct 20, 2017

Link to public branch where this is being developed so we can comment?

@leto

This comment has been minimized.

Contributor

leto commented Oct 20, 2017

This seems to be under development in private. Somewhat concerning.

@prusnak

This comment has been minimized.

prusnak commented Oct 20, 2017

Or not being developed at all ...

@usefree

This comment has been minimized.

usefree commented Oct 20, 2017

@prusnak please, if i understand correctly, after this issue will be solved it will become possible to implement Trezor web-wallet support?

@prusnak

This comment has been minimized.

prusnak commented Oct 20, 2017

This and address change in #17

@saleemrashid

This comment has been minimized.

saleemrashid commented Oct 20, 2017

Will you use SIGHASH_FORKID? If not, why will you not? Most services and wallets (including web wallets and hardware wallets) support SIGHASH_FORKID so it would be incredibly reckless to choose another replay protection scheme if you want support for Bitcoin Gold implemented and released quickly.

@h4x3rotab

This comment has been minimized.

Contributor

h4x3rotab commented Oct 20, 2017

Will you use SIGHASH_FORKID? If not, why will you not? Most wallets (including web wallets and hardware wallets) support SIGHASH_FORKID so it would be incredibly reckless to choose another replay protection scheme if you want support for Bitcoin Gold implemented and released quickly.

Yes, the same 2-way replay protection as Bitcoin Cash. But we will not implement their legacy OP_RETURN protection.

@saleemrashid

This comment has been minimized.

saleemrashid commented Oct 20, 2017

Yes, the same 2-way replay protection as Bitcoin Cash. But we will not implement their legacy OP_RETURN protection.

That sounds excellent, but where is the code? To use your own words, this has been "work in progress" for weeks.

@h4x3rotab

This comment has been minimized.

Contributor

h4x3rotab commented Oct 20, 2017

Too many features requested. We have to do it one by one. The original plan is to launch a small scale pre-testnet without replay protection, add it later, and then launch another testnet and the mainnet. Now we are putting all the bandwidth on this.

@saleemrashid

This comment has been minimized.

saleemrashid commented Oct 20, 2017

@h4x3rotab When exactly is the testnet going to be launched then? If you want support released quickly, it would be a good idea to have a testnet running at least a few days before the mainnet yet the fork is supposed to happen in about 550 blocks.

@h4x3rotab

This comment has been minimized.

Contributor

h4x3rotab commented Oct 20, 2017

It's the snapshot block height. The full launch is targeted on Nov 1 and could be postponed to ensure the safety if necessary.

@saleemrashid

This comment has been minimized.

saleemrashid commented Oct 20, 2017

It's the snapshot block height.

Why not just fork when the launch happens?

@h4x3rotab

This comment has been minimized.

Contributor

h4x3rotab commented Oct 20, 2017

Why not just fork when the launch happens?

Tight timeline, and there will always be a gap due to the PoW change. A snapshot is the best choice to ensure a smooth launch. Actually we've repeated this for several times but you might missed it.

@prusnak

This comment has been minimized.

prusnak commented Oct 20, 2017

Why did you just start a bounty (#51) if this has been a work in progress since at least 16 days ago? This does not look good at all ...

@joncursi

This comment has been minimized.

joncursi commented Oct 20, 2017

T-minus 3.5 days according to the countdown on http://btcgpu.org/. Oh boy...

@davidmann4

This comment has been minimized.

davidmann4 commented Oct 21, 2017

Will there be a snapshot in 3.5 days or will the fork just happen when it has replay protection?

@davidmann4

This comment has been minimized.

davidmann4 commented Oct 21, 2017

Nevermind it got answered serval times: you do a snapshot. Cool.

@ileathan

This comment has been minimized.

ileathan commented Oct 23, 2017

Wait so no one has implemented this? What even is the bounty? I dont even know if I can do it in this time anymore though..

@ileathan

This comment has been minimized.

ileathan commented Oct 23, 2017

Well theres like 7 hours left now? GL lol... >_<

@prusnak

This comment has been minimized.

prusnak commented Oct 23, 2017

1y4h92

@lichtamberg

This comment has been minimized.

lichtamberg commented Oct 23, 2017

@h4x3rotab Why dont you postpone the fork if all these features are not implemented yet? It looks not very serious to start something, which is not properly tested and reviewed (nor even implemented)?

@ronaldobini

This comment has been minimized.

ronaldobini commented Oct 23, 2017

Ow man.. Just think! This is a fork not the launch of the coin.. They will only take a snapshot just it. The deposit and withdrawal will only be available a bunch of days later

@lichtamberg

This comment has been minimized.

lichtamberg commented Oct 23, 2017

So why now? and not at the launch of the coin?

@ronaldobini

This comment has been minimized.

ronaldobini commented Oct 23, 2017

Is simple. They chose this block to fork. They didn't finished the replay protection on time, but is all ready for the fork then they have time to implement, and is a lot easier than other things like pow that they have implemented. So they already stated that they won't launch without the protection. But now there is other priorities. So please stop complaining like noobs. They will implement that same protection than BCash almost crtl c crtl V and boom, they can launch without problems.. Now please relax guys... And will be just another bitcoin free

@unknownids

This comment has been minimized.

unknownids commented Oct 23, 2017

yes, the people complaining here are the noobs. /s

@mryellow

This comment has been minimized.

mryellow commented Oct 23, 2017

They will implement that same protection than BCash almost crtl c crtl V and boom, they can launch without problems..

Actually some last minute dodgy negative version number hack.

#62

@Ivans1310

This comment has been minimized.

Ivans1310 commented Oct 24, 2017

replay protection already implemented ?, and if so, when trezor would enable a wallet for bitcoin Gold?

@dudzcom

This comment has been minimized.

dudzcom commented Oct 24, 2017

Is this done?

@Ivans1310

This comment has been minimized.

Ivans1310 commented Oct 24, 2017

I think not, because they still do not deliver them supposedly until November

@briannyeko

This comment has been minimized.

briannyeko commented Oct 25, 2017

have you guys implemented Replay protection yet?

@martin-key

This comment has been minimized.

Contributor

martin-key commented Oct 25, 2017

@briannyeko #83
Will close that issue. Please refer to this issue: #51

@martin-key martin-key closed this Oct 25, 2017

@lacostenycoder

This comment has been minimized.

lacostenycoder commented Oct 26, 2017

IMHO this is possible the worst rollout of a hard fork imaginable. Anyone who held their BTC on a Ledger Nano S or Trezor like myself basically lost any chance at selling off their BTG when it still had any value. Hope you core dev(s) really only 1 main dev (how is this possible?) made out like a bandit and sold your pre-mined coins before it tanked. I don't mean to sound negative and I hope there comes some real value to this eventually. In the meantime...

screen shot 2017-10-26 at 2 48 36 pm

@hashmonkey

This comment has been minimized.

hashmonkey commented Oct 26, 2017

100% agree with @lacostenycoder

this is a fucking joke. vapourware it should be called from now on...

22852178_10208152641972438_2174978924627953445_n

@briannyeko

This comment has been minimized.

briannyeko commented Oct 26, 2017

@martin-key

This comment has been minimized.

Contributor

martin-key commented Oct 26, 2017

@rikur

This comment has been minimized.

rikur commented Nov 12, 2017

Feel free to spam my repos whenever I let out blatant lies!

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment