Implement two-way replay protection #18

prusnak · 2017-09-29T13:47:32Z

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:

Implement two-way replay protection Bitcoin-ABC/bitcoin-abc#24
Make protected transactions mandatory on UAHF chain (and enforce SCRIPT_VERIFY_STRICTENC) bitcoincashorg/spec#17

leto · 2017-10-04T17:39:12Z

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

h4x3rotab · 2017-10-04T17:41:24Z

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 · 2017-10-04T17:42:42Z

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

bithernet · 2017-10-17T01:16:35Z

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

Any docs?

leto · 2017-10-17T01:41:58Z

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

drewdotpro · 2017-10-18T12:12:57Z

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 · 2017-10-18T12:21:53Z

we here in Brazil just waiting it too.

Paulnternet · 2017-10-18T13:40:43Z

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

prusnak · 2017-10-18T14:16:40Z

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 · 2017-10-20T15:46:31Z

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

h4x3rotab · 2017-10-20T15:49:07Z

In progress

prusnak · 2017-10-20T15:50:25Z

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

leto · 2017-10-20T15:53:42Z

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

prusnak · 2017-10-20T15:54:43Z

Or not being developed at all ...

usefree · 2017-10-20T15:56:39Z

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

prusnak · 2017-10-20T16:01:43Z

This and address change in #17

saleemrashid · 2017-10-20T17:23:13Z

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 · 2017-10-20T17:26:37Z

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 · 2017-10-20T17:29:57Z

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 · 2017-10-20T17:35:09Z

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 · 2017-10-20T17:37:53Z

@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 · 2017-10-20T17:40:31Z

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 · 2017-10-20T17:49:11Z

It's the snapshot block height.

Why not just fork when the launch happens?

h4x3rotab · 2017-10-20T17:53:07Z

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 · 2017-10-20T17:55:55Z

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 · 2017-10-20T18:43:31Z

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

davidmann4 · 2017-10-21T08:23:32Z

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

davidmann4 · 2017-10-21T08:24:50Z

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

ileathan · 2017-10-23T18:35:24Z

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 · 2017-10-23T20:31:17Z

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

prusnak · 2017-10-23T20:37:18Z

h0jeZvgoxFepBQ2C · 2017-10-23T20:52:10Z

@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 · 2017-10-23T20:56:14Z

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

h0jeZvgoxFepBQ2C · 2017-10-23T20:57:15Z

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

ronaldobini · 2017-10-23T21:25:12Z

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 · 2017-10-23T22:22:34Z

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

mryellow · 2017-10-23T22:29:31Z

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 · 2017-10-24T14:35:38Z

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

dudzcom · 2017-10-24T18:23:22Z

Is this done?

Ivans1310 · 2017-10-24T18:25:27Z

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

ghost · 2017-10-25T10:47:29Z

have you guys implemented Replay protection yet?

martin-key · 2017-10-25T10:55:35Z

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

lacostenycoder · 2017-10-26T18:58:12Z

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...

hashmonkey · 2017-10-26T19:02:27Z

100% agree with @lacostenycoder

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

ghost · 2017-10-26T19:09:58Z

hahaha you guys are hillarious!!

…

On Thu, Oct 26, 2017 at 9:02 PM, Nuno Vieira ***@***.***> wrote: 100% agree with @lacostenycoder <https://github.com/lacostenycoder> this is a fucking joke. vapourware it should be called from now on... [image: 22852178_10208152641972438_2174978924627953445_n] <https://user-images.githubusercontent.com/28983492/32071841-7f994cfa-ba88-11e7-93d3-5a0c6e020d85.jpg> — You are receiving this because you were mentioned. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub <#18 (comment)>, or mute the thread <https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AFlX26EeQhn6NCUCAQtxQe92VkAylraRks5swNdOgaJpZM4PosxX> .

martin-key · 2017-10-26T19:11:45Z

Stop spamming FFS. When you want to spam or hate, create your repo and do it there. Some people here are trying to get the work done as you have no other job than just spamming. We want to have clear emails from github in order to be aware if there are real issues and that way you are making it really hard… Please respect my work as I don’t spam your repos and making your work hard!

…

On 26 Oct 2017, at 22:02, Nuno Vieira ***@***.***> wrote: 100% agree with @lacostenycoder <https://github.com/lacostenycoder> this is a fucking joke. vapourware it should be called from now on... <https://user-images.githubusercontent.com/28983492/32071841-7f994cfa-ba88-11e7-93d3-5a0c6e020d85.jpg> — You are receiving this because you modified the open/close state. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub <#18 (comment)>, or mute the thread <https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/ADrjrXOa4D_uyJcPADCrrVT0j_3c-7V5ks5swNdIgaJpZM4PosxX>.

rikur · 2017-11-12T08:41:54Z

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

saleemrashid mentioned this issue Oct 20, 2017

Change address version #17

Closed

martin-key mentioned this issue Oct 20, 2017

Replay Protection Implementation #51

Closed

turcane mentioned this issue Oct 23, 2017

Implement Strong Replay Protection #62

Closed

martin-key closed this as completed Oct 25, 2017

Implement two-way replay protection #18

Implement two-way replay protection #18

Comments

prusnak commented Sep 29, 2017

leto commented Oct 4, 2017

h4x3rotab commented Oct 4, 2017

leto commented Oct 4, 2017

bithernet commented Oct 17, 2017

leto commented Oct 17, 2017

drewdotpro commented Oct 18, 2017

ronaldobini commented Oct 18, 2017

Paulnternet commented Oct 18, 2017

prusnak commented Oct 18, 2017 • edited Loading

usefree commented Oct 20, 2017

h4x3rotab commented Oct 20, 2017

prusnak commented Oct 20, 2017

leto commented Oct 20, 2017

prusnak commented Oct 20, 2017

usefree commented Oct 20, 2017

prusnak commented Oct 20, 2017

saleemrashid commented Oct 20, 2017 • edited Loading

h4x3rotab commented Oct 20, 2017

saleemrashid commented Oct 20, 2017

h4x3rotab commented Oct 20, 2017

saleemrashid commented Oct 20, 2017

h4x3rotab commented Oct 20, 2017

saleemrashid commented Oct 20, 2017

h4x3rotab commented Oct 20, 2017

prusnak commented Oct 20, 2017 • edited Loading

joncursi commented Oct 20, 2017

davidmann4 commented Oct 21, 2017

davidmann4 commented Oct 21, 2017

ileathan commented Oct 23, 2017

ileathan commented Oct 23, 2017

prusnak commented Oct 23, 2017

h0jeZvgoxFepBQ2C commented Oct 23, 2017

ronaldobini commented Oct 23, 2017

h0jeZvgoxFepBQ2C commented Oct 23, 2017

ronaldobini commented Oct 23, 2017

unknownids commented Oct 23, 2017 • edited Loading

mryellow commented Oct 23, 2017

Ivans1310 commented Oct 24, 2017

dudzcom commented Oct 24, 2017

Ivans1310 commented Oct 24, 2017

ghost commented Oct 25, 2017 • edited by ghost Loading

martin-key commented Oct 25, 2017

lacostenycoder commented Oct 26, 2017

hashmonkey commented Oct 26, 2017

ghost commented Oct 26, 2017 via email

martin-key commented Oct 26, 2017 via email

rikur commented Nov 12, 2017

prusnak commented Oct 18, 2017 •

edited

Loading

saleemrashid commented Oct 20, 2017 •

edited

Loading

prusnak commented Oct 20, 2017 •

edited

Loading

unknownids commented Oct 23, 2017 •

edited

Loading

ghost commented Oct 25, 2017 •

edited by ghost

Loading