Bitcoin Core developers did not agree to include SegWit2x code in their protocol
The Bitcoin Core team (official Bitcoin client) did not agree to include the SegWit2x code in the current system protocol. According to representatives of the "official" cue ball, the work on creating the SegWit2x was carried out without due attention to detail, so using this technology right now is not possible.
The main point that the Bitcoin Core team criticizes is the refusal of SegWit2x developers to include protection against replay attacks in the protocol code. This problem is really important for cryptocurrency. In particular, for Bitcoin, since this coin is at the top of its popularity, and its rate beats all records, despite the fact that from time to time the price of the cue ball against the dollar is still reduced.
Previously, the SegWit2x team planned hardfork starting at block 494784. It was reported that the code would be incompatible with current versions of Bitcoin Core and UASF. The refusal to include the above-mentioned protection system means that attacks on the authentication system are not excluded in the future by recording and then reproducing previously sent correct messages on transactions or parts of such messages. As a result, an attacker can use the victim’s funds by conducting a transaction with an identical recipient and the amount being sent, but in a different registry.
')
In Bitcoin Cash, the fork of the main Bitcoin, the problem with a repeat attack was solved relatively simply. Here, when conducting a transaction, a special identifier is used, which allows the system to understand that the transaction goes in the Bitcoin Cash registry, and not anywhere else. So the nodes that work with the “official” jam will not allow the Bitcoin Cash transaction. This is protection against replay. But Bitcoin Core does not have such protection, and the SegWit2x developers believe that the coin team itself should solve their problems.
In principle, it is very similar to the fact that among the developers of the two teams - Bitcoin Core and Segwit2x there is a conflict. Some do not agree to include a new protocol in their infrastructure, others refuse to solve the problems of this infrastructure with its protection. As a result, not those and not others suffer, but the users of the system.
The other day on the Github Bitcoin Core page a request appeared to include SegWit2x in the original protocol of the official cryptomonet. This was planned to be done in order to make both versions compatible. Hardfork team SegWit2x planned to spend on block 494784. Representatives of SegWit2x believe that the new software version 1.14.5 is not alpha and not beta, but release version, you can work with it without any problems.
Now the Segwit2x developers accuse the Bitcoin Core team of not fulfilling the agreement signed in May by participants in a meeting in New York. These accusations come fairly regularly, despite the fact that there is simply no general signature of the representatives of the Bitcoin Core group under the general agreement. The agreement (more precisely, the agreement, there were two of them) provided for an increase in the block size to 2 MB.
In general, the outcome in which three separate registries will appear in the Bitcoin infrastructure at once becomes more and more likely. We are talking about the emergence of the registry SegWit2x, protected from attacks from reuse and the continued existence and operation of the original registry. To all this, we do not forget about Bitcoin Cash (the rate of which has grown, and quite significantly), right? If you do not take action, the separation, which will undoubtedly turn into temporary problems of the cryptocurrency infrastructure (both main and fork) will occur in November.
The situation so far is becoming increasingly confusing, and it is unlikely that conflicts of the developers of the cryptocurrency infrastructure can lead to something good. Here they either agree on cooperation and work together, or the infrastructure will split. Maybe it will not be too terrible, but why do we all need extra problems? Bitcoin has just begun to recognize and use the state structures of various countries, when suddenly confusion and vacillation began in the main camp. Hopefully, all disagreements will be resolved soon.
The main point that the Bitcoin Core team criticizes is the refusal of SegWit2x developers to include protection against replay attacks in the protocol code. This problem is really important for cryptocurrency. In particular, for Bitcoin, since this coin is at the top of its popularity, and its rate beats all records, despite the fact that from time to time the price of the cue ball against the dollar is still reduced.
Previously, the SegWit2x team planned hardfork starting at block 494784. It was reported that the code would be incompatible with current versions of Bitcoin Core and UASF. The refusal to include the above-mentioned protection system means that attacks on the authentication system are not excluded in the future by recording and then reproducing previously sent correct messages on transactions or parts of such messages. As a result, an attacker can use the victim’s funds by conducting a transaction with an identical recipient and the amount being sent, but in a different registry.
')
In Bitcoin Cash, the fork of the main Bitcoin, the problem with a repeat attack was solved relatively simply. Here, when conducting a transaction, a special identifier is used, which allows the system to understand that the transaction goes in the Bitcoin Cash registry, and not anywhere else. So the nodes that work with the “official” jam will not allow the Bitcoin Cash transaction. This is protection against replay. But Bitcoin Core does not have such protection, and the SegWit2x developers believe that the coin team itself should solve their problems.
In principle, it is very similar to the fact that among the developers of the two teams - Bitcoin Core and Segwit2x there is a conflict. Some do not agree to include a new protocol in their infrastructure, others refuse to solve the problems of this infrastructure with its protection. As a result, not those and not others suffer, but the users of the system.
The other day on the Github Bitcoin Core page a request appeared to include SegWit2x in the original protocol of the official cryptomonet. This was planned to be done in order to make both versions compatible. Hardfork team SegWit2x planned to spend on block 494784. Representatives of SegWit2x believe that the new software version 1.14.5 is not alpha and not beta, but release version, you can work with it without any problems.
Now the Segwit2x developers accuse the Bitcoin Core team of not fulfilling the agreement signed in May by participants in a meeting in New York. These accusations come fairly regularly, despite the fact that there is simply no general signature of the representatives of the Bitcoin Core group under the general agreement. The agreement (more precisely, the agreement, there were two of them) provided for an increase in the block size to 2 MB.
In general, the outcome in which three separate registries will appear in the Bitcoin infrastructure at once becomes more and more likely. We are talking about the emergence of the registry SegWit2x, protected from attacks from reuse and the continued existence and operation of the original registry. To all this, we do not forget about Bitcoin Cash (the rate of which has grown, and quite significantly), right? If you do not take action, the separation, which will undoubtedly turn into temporary problems of the cryptocurrency infrastructure (both main and fork) will occur in November.
The situation so far is becoming increasingly confusing, and it is unlikely that conflicts of the developers of the cryptocurrency infrastructure can lead to something good. Here they either agree on cooperation and work together, or the infrastructure will split. Maybe it will not be too terrible, but why do we all need extra problems? Bitcoin has just begun to recognize and use the state structures of various countries, when suddenly confusion and vacillation began in the main camp. Hopefully, all disagreements will be resolved soon.
Source: https://habr.com/ru/post/373757/
All Articles