Concerns Grow Over Replay Attacks as BIP-110 Proponents Label Bitcoin 'Spamcoin'

cryptonews.ruPubblicato 2026-08-20Pubblicato ultima volta 2026-08-20

Introduzione

Anxiety is growing regarding replay attacks due to the upcoming BIP-110 hard fork, with proponents like Luke Dashjr labeling the dominant Bitcoin chain as "Spamcoin." The fork plans to replace the SHA-256d mining algorithm with BLAKE2b in a minority chain, creating two networks that share Bitcoin's transaction history. The core concern is replay attacks, where a transaction signed for one chain is also valid and can be rebroadcast on the other, potentially moving coins on both chains unknowingly. While protection methods exist—like modifying the transaction signature hash (sighash) to make transactions chain-specific—the emerging plan for the BIP-110/RDTS chain appears to favor an opt-in approach rather than mandatory, universal replay protection. Dashjr argues replay protection is the responsibility of what he calls the "Spamcoin" (dominant) chain, asserting the minority BIP-110 chain is the legitimate Bitcoin. This view conflicts with network data showing the BIP-110 chain has minimal hash rate and is practically stalled, while the dominant chain retains nearly all hash power, economic activity, and recognition. The opt-in protection strategy places the burden on users and service providers (like exchanges and wallets) to manually manage transactions, using new sighash types or manual methods to separate coins. This complicates security and adoption, as infrastructure providers are unlikely to support a chain without robust, automatic replay protection. If the BLAKE2b fo...

This issue is important, as Luke Dashjr and other proponents of BIP-110 discuss a hard fork that would replace the SHA-256d mining algorithm in the minority chain with BLAKE2b. This move would create an entirely new architecture, but both networks would still share the transaction history accumulated before the split.

What is a Replay Attack?

Imagine someone has 1 Bitcoin before the hard fork. When the blockchain splits, the same historical unspent transaction output (UTXO) exists in both networks. In practice, the owner controls the corresponding coins in each chain using the same private key.

Problems begin if both networks also recognize the same transaction and signature rules. Suppose the owner sends a coin to an exchange on chain A. If this signed transaction is also valid on chain B, another party can copy it and broadcast it on that chain. Chain B may accept the transaction because cryptographically, nothing distinguishes this authorization from one intended for its network.

A visual diagram of how a replay attack works.

This is a replay attack. No one is stealing a private key or hacking Bitcoin's cryptography. The problem is simpler: the user created one valid authorization, but two blockchain networks recognize it. And while the BIP-110 chain is at block height 961636, people spending BTC are simultaneously moving BIP-110 coins — or whatever they might be called in the future — without even realizing it.

"The overwhelming majority of these [BIP-110 minority chain] blocks simply replay transactions made days ago on the main chain," wrote Mempool.space developer Mononaut on X. The topic of replay protection or replay attacks has sparked intense discussion on X over the past few days.

Replay Protection Builds a Wall Between Chains

Replay protection prevents such crossover by making transactions in competing networks distinguishable. One method involves changing the signature hash, commonly called sighash, so that a transaction signed for one chain does not match the consensus rules of the other.

Mandatory protection makes this distinction part of the fork itself. Optional protection leaves normal transactions potentially compatible with both chains and requires users to consciously use a chain-specific mechanism when they wish to split their coins.

This distinction has become important for BIP-110. The emerging plan apparently does not include automatic and comprehensive two-way replay protection. Instead, at least based on Discord discussions, Bitcoin Knots is implementing a new sighash variant that can create transactions valid on the RDTS chain but invalid on Bitcoin Core.

Dashjr Claims Protection is the Other Chain's Problem

Dashjr has taken an unusual position regarding which network should be responsible. On August 18, responding to a question about replay protection for the proposed hard fork, he said: "Replay protection was the responsibility of Spamcoin, as it's an altcoin being airdropped."

Image source: X

He added that ways would be found to split transactions but argued that "legitimate Bitcoin transactions should remain valid on the Bitcoin network." His reasoning is based on the assertion that the BIP-110/RDTS minority network is part of Bitcoin, while the overwhelmingly dominant Bitcoin blockchain on SHA-256d is the forked-off network.

Image source: X

Dashjr has repeatedly used derogatory names for the dominant Bitcoin chain, including "Spamcoin" and "Bpedo" — a term incorporating "pedo." He has characterized this network as an altcoin while continuing to describe the BIP-110 branch as legitimate Bitcoin.

Network Numbers Tell a Very Different Story

This characterization contradicts observed network activity. BIP-110 miner signaling peaked at approximately 2.53%, and when that branch's consensus rules activated on August 8, its minority chain produced only two blocks immediately after launch before stalling. The dominant Bitcoin chain continued functioning while the gap widened by hundreds of blocks. A few more BIP-110 blocks have been mined at an extremely low rate.

The majority network retained virtually all of Bitcoin's significant hash rate, the longest chain, proof-of-work weight, liquidity, and economic adoption. Subsequently, the BIP-110 proposal was considered closed, with its supporters moving to plans for a proof-of-work (PoW) algorithm change to BLAKE2b aimed at reviving the minority network.

Furthermore, the Bitcoin community is annoyed by Dashjr's repeated claims, and the debated "opt-in" replay protection is a point of contention. "Lol. Luke isn't going to launch his shitcoin without replay protection, is he? I guess it won't get listed on exchanges then," wrote one X user on Wednesday.

Another X user countered:

"This has crossed the line from nonsense to malicious behavior. Spreading this kind of misinformation can cause real financial harm to bitcoiners."

Opt-in Protection Places Burden on Users

According to the approach currently being discussed on the Bitcoin Knots Discord channel, normal transactions may remain vulnerable to replay, as RDTS intends to maintain compatibility with existing Bitcoin Core sighash types. Users wishing to avail themselves of RDTS-specific protection would need to use a new sighash, requiring support from wallet software or hardware signing firmware.

Conversation on the Bitcoin Knots Discord channel — screenshot.

Users could also attempt to split their coins manually. A Bitcoin transaction containing data that RDTS rejects could create an output existing only on the dominant chain. Conversely, the proposed RDTS-specific sighash could result in a transaction that RDTS accepts but Bitcoin Core rejects.

The result more closely resembles optional, opt-in replay protection than the automatic "firewall" users might expect from a contentious hard fork. Consequently, wallets, exchanges, and crypto holders would need to determine on their own precisely which transactions could bleed between chains. This arrangement seems odd, especially for a new chain and crypto asset with no exchange support. Infrastructure providers, particularly crypto exchanges, are unlikely to deal with a chain that prefers opt-in protection over a universal barrier against replay.

If the BLAKE2b fork occurs around September 1st, replay protection will be more than just an obscure technical detail. It will be a practical test of whether users can safely separate assets inherited from the same Bitcoin history, even as Dashjr continues to claim that the network accounting for virtually all of Bitcoin's hash rate, liquidity, and economic activity is somehow an altcoin.

end-content

Domande pertinenti

QWhat is a replay attack in the context of a blockchain hard fork, as described in the article?

AA replay attack occurs when a blockchain splits into two chains (e.g., a hard fork) that share transaction history. A transaction valid and signed for one chain can be copied and broadcast on the other chain, potentially causing the same coins to be spent on both networks without the user's intention or knowledge.

QAccording to the article, what is the stance of Luke Dashjr and BIP-110 supporters on replay protection?

ALuke Dashjr and BIP-110 supporters argue that replay protection is the responsibility of the dominant Bitcoin chain, which they label as "Spamcoin." They view the BIP-110/RDTS minority chain as the legitimate Bitcoin and believe its transactions should remain valid there, placing the burden of protection on the other chain.

QWhat are the two main types of replay protection mentioned in the article?

AThe article mentions two main types: 1) Mandatory protection, which builds the distinction between chains into the fork's consensus rules. 2) Opt-in protection, which leaves regular transactions potentially compatible with both chains and requires users to consciously use a chain-specific mechanism to separate their coins.

QWhat method is being considered by Bitcoin Knots (related to BIP-110) to provide opt-in replay protection?

ABitcoin Knots is considering implementing a new sighash variant. Transactions using this new sighash would be valid only on the BIP-110/RDTS chain but invalid on the Bitcoin Core chain, allowing users to opt-in to protection. This requires wallet or hardware signature firmware support.

QWhat is a major concern raised in the article regarding the opt-in replay protection approach for the proposed BLAKE2b fork?

AA major concern is that opt-in protection places the responsibility and complexity on users, wallets, and exchanges. They must actively differentiate which transactions are valid on which chain. This could lead to accidental cross-chain spending and deter infrastructure providers like exchanges from supporting the new chain, due to the increased risk and operational burden.

Letture associate

New Insider Trading in Prediction Market Exposed: It's Impossible to Lose When You Sit in That Position

PolyBeats reported on August 19 about a user who achieved a 120% return in just 89 seconds by betting that Russia would capture Konstantynivka on a prediction market platform, where the probability (and price) surged from 43% to 92%. This trade was notably the 14th in a series of perfect predictions related to the Russia-Ukraine war by this account, with a total profit of approximately $17,500. Eleven of these trades saw the probability jump to near 100% within five minutes of the purchase. The article suggests these consistent gains point to potential insider knowledge. The key is that these prediction markets on Polymarket settle based not on real-time battlefield events, but on whether the Institute for the Study of War (ISW) updates its official interactive map to show an area as controlled by Russia. Therefore, profiting reliably doesn't require military intelligence, but merely advance knowledge of when and where ISW will update its map. This mirrors a prior incident in November 2025, where an unauthorized, temporary edit to the ISW map regarding Myrnohrad allowed a trader to make over a 10,000% return before the edit was reversed. While ISW has since added safeguards like "pending review" statuses and duration requirements for map changes, the article argues the 14-trade winning streak indicates someone with access to the map update process—like an ISW staffer—could exploit the time gap between an internal decision and its public release, turning administrative knowledge into nearly guaranteed profits.

marsbit25 min fa

New Insider Trading in Prediction Market Exposed: It's Impossible to Lose When You Sit in That Position

marsbit25 min fa

Storage Giants Launch Massive Buybacks, Signaling a Turning Point in the 'Super Cycle'?

In August, South Korean memory giant SK Hynix announced a record 40 trillion won stock buyback, triggering a sharp rise in related stocks. This move, along with similar large-scale buybacks or shareholder return plans from Kioxia, SanDisk, and an expected major plan from Samsung Electronics, aims to bolster market confidence amid a significant sector correction starting July. Despite strong AI-driven demand fueling a "super cycle" and long-term supply agreements locking in most capacity with strict penalty clauses, concerns over an AI bubble and cycle peak have emerged. Looking ahead, analysts warn that accelerated capacity expansions—including from Chinese leaders CXMT and YMTC—scheduled for 2027-2028, coupled with potential delays in next-gen HBM production, could intensify competition. While buybacks and long-term agreements offer short-term support, the memory sector's ability to truly break its cyclical pattern may face a decisive test in the coming years.

marsbit30 min fa

Storage Giants Launch Massive Buybacks, Signaling a Turning Point in the 'Super Cycle'?

marsbit30 min fa

FalconX Invests $14 Million in Gate Tokens Amid Growing Fears of Institutional Investor Selling

FalconX transferred 198,750 $HYPE (worth ~$14M) to the Gate exchange on August 19, signaling a potential sale. This aligns with a trend of institutional investors reducing their $HYPE exposure. Onchain Lens reported another wallet sending 47,000 $HYPE to FalconX, likely preparing to sell. The market is increasingly dominated by large players, and such moves are significant for $HYPE due to its smaller, less liquid market compared to Bitcoin or Ether. Multicoin Capital also transferred 172,710 $HYPE to Coinbase Prime. While this was a small part of its large position, high leverage in the market amplifies the risk that increased selling pressure could trigger liquidations and price declines. Despite the selling pressure, $HYPE maintains significant support. FalconX strategist noted ~$300M inflows into $HYPE ETFs this quarter. Additionally, the token's deflationary mechanism, which uses protocol fees for daily buybacks and burns, provides a balancing factor. $HYPE's price showed resilience, rising over 19% to around $69 on August 20. The next key market data, coinciding with recent OTC flows, is expected on September 6.

cryptonews.ru1 h fa

FalconX Invests $14 Million in Gate Tokens Amid Growing Fears of Institutional Investor Selling

cryptonews.ru1 h fa

Trading

Spot
活动图片