chains
chains copied to clipboard
ethereum-lists
Add Bitkub Chain Mainnet and Testnet
Added Bitkub Chain, Replace Next Smart Chain (Old chain same chain id: 96)
Detail Genesis Block Next Smart chain: Block 0
-
Mainnet
- Network ID: 96
- Detail Genesis Block: Block 0
-
Testnet
- Network ID: 25925
@ligi sorry, I want to know what the average time for pull request review or any progress?
![github-actions[bot] avatar](https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/in/15368?v=4 "Published by a pub.dev verified publisher"){kind=small}
@ligi can you provide some assistance toward this request? The chain id's detail on ethereum-list:master still didn't have any update on it
Chain Id 96 is already in use for next smart chain, it will conflict. You can use another chain id for the mainnet.
Before next smart chain we run on another blockchain which is even older. I will send proof of this genesis block.
Before next smart chain we run on another blockchain which is even older. I will send proof of this genesis block.
this would help - then this is likely not to be merged here - except for the Testnet - @ppanya - please split in this case
would like @dcnl1980 to share the proof of genesis block here so thats can be right for @ligi to consider in this case.
Some of my opinion: if there is another blockchain with older genesis block using chain id 96, isn't it need to change into that name of the blockchain?
tbh if chain id 96 will be submitted as a NEXT Smart Chain, Bitkub Chain has the right to claim this due to the older genesis block.
on top of that, next smart chain currently have around 25.9K blocks with 5,342 transactions while Bitkub Chain exceeded 10M blocks with total transaction of 339M as of now.
Isn't it suitable for NEXT Smart Chain to be the one who change the chain ID?
for comparison: www.bkcscan.com https://explorer.nextsmartchain.com
@dcnl1980 plese send the proof - otherwise I need to merge this one (but it for sure needs "redFlags": ["reusedChainId"] then)
I give you 7 days to respond - otherwise it will be merged (with redFlags)
@ligi Proof will be send later today.
In the attachment you find the proof of the old blockchain, which we run before NEXT Smart Chain and which have the same Chain ID 96.
The genesis block was mined with timestamp 1555502400, which is Wed Apr 17 2019 12:00:00 GMT+0000.
NEXT itself has been active in the market since October 2017.
on top of that, next smart chain currently have around 25.9K blocks with 5,342 transactions while Bitkub Chain exceeded 10M blocks with total transaction of 339M as of now.
Regarding the above I want to object that the amount of blocks or transactions per blockchain can be different, the old NEXT Chain had over 1,8M blocks, but the new NEXT Smart Chain (more efficient) only creates blocks when transactions are actually performed and not every few seconds like BitKub does.
Thinking in solutions. I have no problem with both names being listed under Chain ID 96 (if possible). It would solve both problems. Changing a chain ID for a running public and operative blockchain is almost impossible without starting a new one.
I'm not quite sure if the proof you provide is valid or not, is it right to use this proof of old blockchain (inactive or currently active?) as an authority to chain id 96 is not suitable at all as I mentioned in my thought above.
Also speaking of the discussion on the genesis block on the current NEXT Smart Chain, we didn't ask for NSC to change your chain ID as you said before but we only need the right the be presenting as the only blockchain on chain ID 96 user's search
@ligi please considerately suggest in this case whether it's right to use the old blockchain genesis block (which is unknown for the current status) to claim the authority to represent the new chain which is younger than Bitkub Chain.
@ppanya please add "redFlags": ["reusedChainId"]
@dcnl1980 unfortunately this is not really a proof and could be crafted - so I think I have to go with merging as for our collision management policy. Why didn't you choose a new chainID back then? This would have been much better (also wrt replay attacks)
@ligi why this should not be a proof, this block chain is still active and much older than Bitkub, so we should overrule them.
We even did not know the existence of Bitkub when we choose the chain is, why we should if we have older rights? We checked your website and 96 was available.
We could also turn it around, why Bitkub did not register it 2 years ago?
Anyway we are not agreeing, where can we make objection about this?
dam this is messy - our current policy is oldest genesis wins. But I cannot just take a screenshot - everyone could just fake this. But if the chain is still active this changes things. Also tempted to change it to "first one registering wins" - which makes it much clearer and less prone to ugly discussions like this.
To clarify, I myself and @ppanya didn't plan to make the discussion to go this way since we're considering the current policy as the most important factor, there can be some questions for @dcnl1980 regarding our actions but we're really open, and didn't mean to disrespect in any case.
I did understand how frustrating this could be for @ligi and we're very sorry if this case cause a mess for you and will respect your attentive decision.
on the other hand, if NEXT Smart Chain can provide their proof of the old chain's genesis block, will NSC be able to connect that one to the chainlist? since you're claiming the right of this using the old chain and we'll not doubt anything from that.
Chain Id 96 is already in use for next smart chain, it will conflict. You can use another chain id for the mainnet.
Changing a chain ID for a running public and operative blockchain is almost impossible without starting a new one.
TL;DR these 2 opinions above, seem like you're finding the space for an objection at the stage while you're rushing us to do the almost impossible task 2 days ago.
https://twitter.com/EthereumLists/status/1615056830278864903
I need to think about this situation a bit more and get more input on the general situation.
@dcnl1980 plese send the proof - otherwise I need to merge this one (but it for sure needs
"redFlags": ["reusedChainId"]then) I give you 7 days to respond - otherwise it will be merged (with redFlags)
I would like to follow up on this case after a week passed by since the response of proof is not actually legit, and there is no further proof of it as well. I wish this case to be considered as neutral as possible upon the current policy. @ligi
with respect, macvts
I will very likely merge this soon - seems the current policy and arguments are on your side - but first I really need to change the policy. Never want to be in this situation again.
@ligi we send enough proof about our earlier existence and usage of chain id 96. Since this chain is still up and running we reserve the right to put the block explorer online and therefore claim the chain id 96 as the oldest block chain.
I do not think it is enough proof yet - this screenshot is trivial to create. Doing a chain with blockexplorer is at least a bit harder - but yea I know it can also easily be faked (at least for non PoW chains) - but so could the other chain be.
But to not be in the situation again I now changing the policy:
https://github.com/ethereum-lists/chains/pull/1629
I think it's good to change the policy, to first come, first serve, like domain names. We did our research but it's impossible to find another blockchain which was using chain id 96. Now it appears that somebody else is using it also and this is making big issues. I also understand that you don't think it's enough proof yet, but if we put our block explorer online, it will be a total different story. If needed we will do, since we refuse that somebody else is claiming chain ID 96. We deployed this old chain years ago. If we need to overrule BitKub, we will, but it don't need to end up into a fight. Also they are using NEXT in their Bitkub NEXT, which we already release in 2017. I see them as a copycat in this case. So can you agree with it, if we proof and launch our blockchain explorer, a serious issue will appear? In this case, are you agree that we will takeover chain ID 96 again?
Got it, but this was the previous blockchain after it was merged to another one. So we need time to put the old explorer online (since we take it offline). Anyway you can push Bitkub further. In a later stage I will come back to overrule them by this older blockchain. In that case I want to make sure that it will not make any issue. This change will be just temporary.
May I ask for the estimate time of merging this PR?
Still disagree from the very start that using the old blockchain to claim the authority while the actual use is the new one while comparing to ours are older, with current state of situation is totally unacceptable to bring that up.
Also just want to clarify that the performance and reliability stays in the blockchain, its all provable whether for total wallet address, numbers of project, and numerous partners with bitkub.
@macvts make it clear. We have all the right to bring the old blockchain up. You had to register it a long time ago. You awake after 2 years to claim chain id 96, while we are in the market since 2017, that is a fact. You also called it Bitkub NEXT, so it can be also a trade mark issue as well. Our blockchain will overrule the one which you have if we put the explorer online. You have no right to take chain 96 at all. You are trying to suggest that your blockchain have more transactions, but that is also not a valid proof. Reject this Bitkub thing, on the first serve, first come. We are already in the market since 2017. It is not our mistake that Bitkub comes with a claim after several years.
while we are in the market since 2017, that is a fact.
on the other side of your fact, NSC is the one who starts splitting into new blockchain to restart the whole structure (younger genesis block) which you should be aware of the collision policy that the oldest genesis block will have the authority toward the chain ID 96 and now you resisting while trying to use your no-use blockchain (or maybe unknown) to claim the authority instead. FYI @ligi
currently to the case, we're considering while the policy with the oldest to win and some info that might be useful before any slander to anyone with a trademark issue @dcnl1980 Bitkub Chain = blockchain Bitkub NEXT = Digital Wallet Service Provider Bitkub Exchange = Crypto Exchange Bitkub Venture = Venture Capital Bitkub Academy = Educational Hub for Crypto Trader
@macvts we have the rights to upgrade our blockchain, I don’t see any issues in that. Even with our older blockchain (which is still operational and in use) we are much older than BitKub.