Bitcoin Researcher Clarifies: The Recent Block Reorganization Was Not a Malicious Attack

A rare block reorganization on the Bitcoin network raised concerns about possible foul play when Foundry USA managed to establish a significant seven-block lead. A Bitcoin researcher has provided insights indicating that this incident was merely typical network behavior and not a result of a coordinated attack.

Key Takeaways

The recent two-block reorganization on the Bitcoin network was not malicious.
Foundry USA successfully mined several blocks, leading to confusion within the community.
The incident is attributed to natural network behavior rather than "selfish mining."
The economic incentives for such an attack were not favorable for Foundry.
Data indicate that Foundry acted typically, not as a malicious actor.

Bitcoin Researcher Clarifies: The Recent Block Reorganization Was Not a Malicious Attack

Main Content

Recently, the Bitcoin network experienced an unusual two-block reorganization, resulting in Foundry USA orchestrating an impressive seven-block win streak. This event sparked concerns about potential misconduct within the community.

However, a Bitcoin researcher has stepped in to clarify these worries. The unusual occurrence was a normal aspect of network dynamics rather than a coordinated "selfish-mining" attempt.

As reported by U.Today, the network temporarily split into two competing chains at block height 941880. AntPool mined block 941881, which was then followed by block 941882 on that same trajectory by ViaBTC. Meanwhile, Foundry USA also mined its own versions of blocks 941881 and 941882.

This situation led to two equally valid chains existing side by side until Foundry USA broke the tie by continuing its successful streak, mining blocks 941883, 941884, and 941885. Consequently, the blocks mined by AntPool and ViaBTC became orphaned, marking Foundry's triumph in a remarkable seven-block sequence.

While it seemed like Foundry had managed to produce multiple blocks to surpass its rivals, some immediately suggested that the pool was engaging in "selfish mining." This hypothetical attack involves a miner deliberately withholding valid blocks from the public network to create an advantage for discovering the subsequent block, ultimately squandering the hash power of competing pools.

According to the researcher, the evidence does not lend credence to this allegation. If Foundry had been executing a selfish-mining strategy, it was poorly executed, given the unfavorable economic incentives. It is important to note that the incident occurred during a period of low transaction fees, providing Foundry with an insignificant 0.025 BTC from fees.

Additionally, on-chain data reveals that Foundry initially mined a block on top of those from AntPool and ViaBTC before reverting back to its own chain, a move that wouldn’t be expected from a miner choosing to withhold a secret chain.

The researcher attributes the occurrence to standard network latency issues and specific commands used within Bitcoin Core software.