I sold my BCH after the fork in August 2017. Using my 12 words of my hardware wallet (bip39 mnemonic seed) I could acces them. But because I compromised my 12 words online, I generated new keys on my hardware wallet and transferred my bitcoin to a new safe location. Supply and demand + adoption on exchange gives it value I guess. Bitcoin cash was about 600dollars and BTC 1000 dollars. We all know what happend next. The community decided wich from these two is Bitcoin.
If you sold your BCH and bought BTC with the proceeds at $1k per BTC, then you did very well, as the price of BTC was around $4k in August/Sept 2017!! Somehow, though, I suspect you just sold your BCH and didn’t exchange it for more BTC — if so, what a shame, after what happened next!!
I swapped it with a BTC/BCH pair, I have no clue how much profit I had, I just wanted to get rid of it for more BTC. If you had bitcoin where you own the keys at August 1, 2017 you should be able to claim your BCH tokens (even today).
I didn’t own BCH when BitcoinSV forked from it.
ps. I didn’t owned that much BTC, I’m a simple guy
Dollar cost average is the best strategy, buy bitcoin once and a while (mainly the dips) and learn about it as much as possible.
Can you please tell me whether the block consensus rules is vetted before mining or after mining but before they are appended to the chain ?
If miners broadcast a block to the bitcoin network, It has to make sure that the block is valid according to the consensus rules. Otherwise the block will be rejected.
Points 1 and 2 in the following linked post might be helpful…
Validation of blocks according to the rules is carried out by the nodes when they receive the new blocks, after they have been mined and distributed throughout the network, and before they are appended to the chain.
However, as @Fabrice suggests in his post, it is also in the best interests of the miner…
…and if the block is rejected by the nodes when they receive it, then the miner won’t receive the block reward.
It looks from your feedback that before the mined block is adopted by the network, the nodes make sure that the consensus rule has been followed. Actually, I was initially under the impression that miners would have checked the consensus rule first before mining otherwise there would be so much hashing power wasted to find later that the block is non compliant. Thanks
Wow, what a thorough research on this matter! Appreciate your respond. Now I am clear but as I have indicated to @Fabrice I was under the impression initially that the checking on consensus rule was done previous to mining because otherwise a lot of wasted hashing power if later found out to be invalid block.
Transactions are checked and validated by the nodes before they are placed in their mempools (so before mining). I expect miners have their own “internal” checking procedures prior to and during the actual mining because, as mentioned before, they are financially incentivised to only mine valid blocks and not “cut corners” so to speak. Maybe we could draw an analogy with a company, which continuously carries out their own internal checks and reviews during a financial year (like the miners mining a block), and then the definitive, external audit is carried out independently once the accounts are finalised after the year end (like blocks being validated by the nodes after they’ve been mined — except in the case of a blockchain, the “external audit” is decentralised and not just carried out by one organisation, as company audits are).
Would you agree @filip and @Fabrice?
Makes more sense to be validated before - otherwise a lot of wasted energy!
Thank you @jon_m for going into more detail as always. I appreciate it
But if you download the Bitcoin Core software and you are syncing the blockchain, Every transaction and block gets verified again (starting from genisis block) . So Jonathan is right that consensus rules are also checked after the miner successfully appends a block to the blockchain. That’s why full nodes are so important. Every full node is basically checking everything. (before and after)
Running a full node again/ first time means you are downloading a copy of the entire blockchain from other nodes to your local machine. I doubt there’s any more verification because previous blocks are immutable.
There has to be a final, decentralised validation of new blocks by the whole network, after they are mined and before they are confirmed as part of the main chain. By each node performing this validation separately, and only appending a block to its version of the blockchain if valid according to its validation process, this is my understanding of how the whole network sooner or later reaches consensus regarding the main chain.
If validation was only performed by the miner mining the block, before being distributed to network, this would make it easy for bad players to break the rules, as they are essentially checking and validating their own work, and so self-interest would win out over fair play.
I think that by only being rewarded for valid blocks that “win the race”, this in itself is enough to incentivise miners to mine according to the rules.
But of course if a miner receives a newly produced block from another miner. It will check it for the same rules, and now that takes place after it was mined (by another node).
Looks as though the consensus rules are constantly reviewed- before and after mining!
in the Accidental forks video you said at 8.15 that if the block is being cancelled then the person will lose his money, but that was very confusingly described.
Yes, if you received money within that block then you will not receive it adventually, but if you paid for something then that transaction simply didnt happen, right?
So its not correct to say that one lost his money.
This transaction from the stale block comes back to the mempool. But still to be sure, you better wait for couple comfirmations to be sure it becomes an immutable transaction in the blockchain. There is always a risk that a transaction in the mempool doesn’t get accepted by a miner. If someone paid you for something, and the transaction didn’t happen, you gave your goods or service for free.
but if you paid for something yourself then not. in the worst case you just dont get the product, but you will not lose your money.
Thats why i posted, it was abit unclear in which cases you lose your money, its better to rephrase that part in my opinion.
Maybe he meant that If you send dollars for this bitcoin, you could lose your ‘fiat’ money without getting your bitcoin.