Ask SN: Why not a exact copy chain right along the original bitcoin chain?
62 sats \ 7 comments \ @brandonsbytes 9 Nov 2023 bitcoin
I'm thinking, in the future scenario where bitcoin is the standard, why wouldn't those who missed out not just start a new network on all the same code? I have heard of side chains, but I don't think I mean that. All the same rules as current bitcoin, just another version. So, 21 million of bitcoin1 and 21 million of bitcoin2?
If bitcoin is the best money, why wouldn't a second bitcoin chain with all the same rules also be good? Is it just the effort and knowledge for now? But, in the future, some industrious madmen might want to start over?
write
preview
related posts
41 sats \ 4 replies \ @Zepasta 9 Nov 2023
deleted by author
reply
0 sats \ 3 replies \ @brandonsbytes OP 9 Nov 2023
deleted by author
reply
31 sats \ 0 replies \ @Zepasta 9 Nov 2023
deleted by author
reply
21 sats \ 0 replies \ @nout 9 Nov 2023
It's been done many times in the past. Anyone is free to create and run a copy. The issue they hit is that no one cares, it doesn't gain traction...
reply
21 sats \ 0 replies \ @randy 9 Nov 2023
A different chain sharing a near-identical codebase (with a different genesis) is possible but Bitcoin is much more than that now. The hash power that has been put into the mainchain can't easily be replicated.
A competitor starting from scratch would have to either choose a new POW algorithm or be at the mercy of attacks from miners on the mainchain, assuming there is liquidity in the competing market. And when I say liquidity I mean a market for local currencies since miners have expenses that can't yet be paid for in Bitcoin.
An alternative to that happening is the case where a majority of miners switch to the competing chain, but that's unlikely for a number of reasons. First, why would a majority of miners leave the mainchain to pursue a competing chain with no liquidity? Following that line of logic, why would Bitcoin holders leave the mainchain for one that offers no added benefit? A majority of miners still don't equal the sum that were on the mainchain so the reliability of each transaction would be reduced.
Now if we're discussing hard forks, there's another set of reasons why they're not successful. All of them start with the fact that the changes made are not desired or needed (as indicated by the market of existing hard forks).
reply
21 sats \ 0 replies \ @owleyedapprentice 9 Nov 2023
i've wondered this too, specifically in relation to the hypothetical 51% attack;
what if institutional investments into bitcoin starts to dominate the majority, and a coordinated attempt is made to hard fork the bitcoin network into one controlled by these institutions, with the claim that "this is the real network", and enough people go along with it in order to preserve the value of what they hold ... a literal hijacking ... is this still a technical possibility?
reply
21 sats \ 0 replies \ @OneOneSeven 9 Nov 2023
2 million+ have already tried and failed
reply