According to various reports, the Bitcoin ABC pro-IFP chain has now been under “attack” for several days. Mysterious miners have been mining a large number of sequential blocks, but almost all blocks are empty. The self-proclaimed “Voluntarism.dev” miner said that the mining business is a group of “guarded miners” and claimed that they may be entangled with a few ABC chains for many years.
The price of freedom is too high
The cryptocurrency community has been concerned about the consequences of the recent blockchain fork, that is, the entry of Bitcoin ABC nodes into its own blockchain. The Bitcoin ABC network is still unnamed, without a brand, and the token is usually called “ABC”, “BCHA” or “BAB”.
Last week, news.Bitcoin.com reported on a secret miner who has been mining a large number of consecutive empty blocks. Because the block has been empty for a long time, it is difficult for anyone to send a transaction on the ABC chain and confirm the transaction in time.
Since the release of our news station report, this mysterious miner has introduced the group under the account name on Twitter volunteer service Each time the pool finds an ABC block reward, it passes the coinbase parameter message. On November 24, 2020, the Voluntarism.dev Twitter account created a message with a blockchain signature to verify its legitimacy.
The miner tweeted on the same day: “A good idea does not require force.” The next day, the team sent a message to other miners pointing the hash rate to the ABC chain. Voluntarism.dev says:
I hope all miners agree: We hope that 100% of the BCHA currency reward is used for pqnqv9lt7e5vjyp0w88zf2af0l92l8rxdgnlxww9j9.
Later in the day, the pool tweeted “The price of freedom is too high” and posted some screenshots of the lead developer of Bitcoin ABC on Twitter Amaury Séchet Discuss the Infrastructure Financing Plan (IFP).
“ABC violated the (non-aggressive principle) NAP during the nine-month civil war,” the Voluntarism.dev Twitter account emphasized in another tweet. “Freeriders must pay ABC 100% of the block reward. We will isolate all blocks that do not have it. Once ABC merges this change, we will also pay 100%.”
Amount of value stolen by ABC [Bitcoin Cash] It looks pale in comparison with our expenditure. We are a group of guarded miners and whales. We can do this for many years. Next time you use a fork: use your own Genesis block, your own PoW [algorithm]And build your own community. [Bitcoin Cash] protected.
At the same time, it took more than 24 hours to clear any ABC pro-IFP transaction between Thursday and Saturday. So far, the blockchain has suffered two blockchain reorganizations (reorganizations). This means that after a block is mined by miners other than Voluntarism.dev, the block has been restored and the block once confirmed disappears. On Saturday morning, someone tried to reorganize the ABC chain for the third time, but it was later restored by the Mining Dutch pool. The mining pool Mining Dutch has successfully processed thousands of transactions for senders on Saturday afternoon (EST).
@yhaiyang Give you an idea. Dump your BCHA assets into your own customer buy-in wall and make it worth $0 (according to your risk warning) https://t.co/ZFHg17KDZz pic.twitter.com/dVFy4m4rWG
Generate a camp attack or force a consensus mechanism?
On November 28, 2020, Ethereum co-founder Vitalik Buterin tweeted about the mysterious mining pool, which now controls 90% of the ABC chain’s computing power. ” [A] 51% of mining pools seem to have the clear goal of attacking BCHA to destroy it. Will this be the first real spawning camp attack on the PoW chain? ”Butlin ask His Twitter followers.
However, the recent empty block attacker is not the first true derivative camp attack on the PoW chain. A Bitcoin clone called Coiledcoin appeared in 2012 and it is said that it was also attacked by the hash rate. The BTC community accused the core developer Luke Dash Jr. of using the mining pool Eligius to promote the Coiledcoin project. Software developer Peter Todd Speaking of events It was posted on Twitter in 2016 when Ethereum Classic (ETC) was threatened by 51% attacks.
On Friday, in response to Buterin’s tweet about mysterious miners, BCH supporters and researchers, Javier González Explain that the technology of the mining pool is not an attack. “This is not offense, but defense,” González Said. “Bitcoin ABC destroyed the BCH project to obtain 8% of coin-based miner rewards. 90% of the Biosafety Clearing House [hashpower] Voted against. Now they are defending their interests. Implement a consensus mechanism. Gonzalez insisted.
News.Bitcoin.com spoke with González on Saturday, and the third attempt to reorganize the blockchain took place. González is also Bitcoin Mining Council (BMP)the concept of Facing Bitcoin Cash network problems Use Satoshi Nakamoto consensus.
In the morning (EST), Viabtc and Mining Dutch mining pools mined blocks 662396 and 662397. Thousands of transactions were confirmed in both blocks, but Voluntarism.dev once again used its huge hashing power to reorganize the chain, and these blocks also disappeared. González gets data from the block explorer Blockchair and runs his own ABC pro-IFP node. Although not long after, the adversarial hashing power was able to prevent Voluntarism.dev’s third reorganization attempt.
González told news.Bitcoin.com on Saturday: “The first air strike + reorganization attack is taking place to destroy the minority split attempt (BAB / BCHA / ABC).” “I think they are a group of miners and biosafety clearing house whales. , They acted together to defend [Bitcoin Cash] The blockchain captures 8% of currency rewards belonging to miners from the split caused by Bitcoin ABC (Amaury). Gonzalez further added:
Basically, Amaury believes that it has the right to break down the project and charge 8% (who knows how much in the future). However, the Hash War denied this.
Mysterious miner tries to reorganize ABC through adversarial hash power for the third time
Gonzalez also said that the ABC chain has only two mitigation measures. Either selectively ignore hash power (total centrality), or change the algorithm in an emergency. The researchers further emphasized that the ABC chain is useless and the market may have to delist the coin. Although the mysterious miner emptied the blockade, it also optimized the attack by making González’s detailed price cheap.
“What we see is what I call’execution mining’.” In other words, this is not “automatic mining” that follows market incentives, but miners use their brains, spend money, and think about a bigger future Incentives (in this case, it seems to be a defense against the BCH),” Gonzalez emphasized.
While talking to the researchers, the Dutch mining pool mined two more blocks. Gonzalez said that the mysterious miner Voluntarism.dev is now facing a hash war. “The massive hashrate reversed the reorganization and protected the BAB,” González said. Currently, there have been two successful reorganizations on Saturday morning, and one failed attempt.
After the mining Dutch found two blocks, Voluntarism.dev mined four blocks. The mining pool claimed that the adversarial hash power is a “bully” in the coin information below. After Voluntarism.dev (662412, 662413, 662414, 662415) mined four blocks, the Dutch mining company obtained two more blocks and managed to process the transaction.
As of now, BCH supporters and ABC supporters will watch the chain with their eyes open. So far, it seems that the chain is far from working, and the existence of the network is uncertain.
What do you think of the hash war and mysterious miners? Let us know your thoughts on this topic in the comments section below.
Picture Credits: Shutterstock, Pixabay, Wiki Commons, Javier González’s chart, Coin Dance Cash ABC hash rate distribution,
Disclaimer: This article is for reference only. It is not a direct offer or solicitation of an offer, nor is it a recommendation or endorsement of any product, service or company. Bitcoin.com does not provide investment, tax, legal or accounting advice. The company or the author is not directly or indirectly responsible for any damage or loss caused or allegedly caused by the use or reliance on any content, goods or services mentioned in this article or related thereto.