Topic: Alert: chain fork caused by pre-0.8 clients dealing badly with large blocks - page 9. (Read 155474 times)
March 12, 2013, 10:49:40 AM
397 posts in 12 hours?
March 12, 2013, 09:47:34 AM
So, can we all agree that rushing things to take care of the volume of transactions that are mostly comprised of satoshidice spam isn't a good idea and it's SD who needs to change and not bitcoin?
March 12, 2013, 09:17:52 AM
And BTC is still in the $40s
Which is good only if it isn't just another bitcoin price bubble.
But we will see. If the price stays up here for another month then we can conclude that is was for real and not a bubble. I'm not exactly holding my breath though.
Bubble or not, bitcoin and its community, particularly the developers and miners, have weathered this technical crisis excellently. In the long run, this will have made bitcoin more resilient, because it shows to the world that both the technical foundation and the bitcoin community are sound and healthy.
March 12, 2013, 09:16:06 AM
So my question is who did this effect negatively & who took the hit because of this?
Someone had to lose a good amount of BTC yesterday.
Someone had to lose a good amount of BTC yesterday.
March 12, 2013, 09:13:23 AM
Gentlemen, you just watched finance in the 21st century.
*complete transparency
*community driven
*solution driven
*results
Bitcoin just gained a lot more confidence.
Well said!*complete transparency
*community driven
*solution driven
*results
Bitcoin just gained a lot more confidence.
YES! Well done, take that Fed Reserve. And BTC is still in the $40s
March 12, 2013, 09:08:39 AM
Gentlemen, you just watched finance in the 21st century.
*complete transparency
*community driven
*solution driven
*results
Bitcoin just gained a lot more confidence.
Well said! *complete transparency
*community driven
*solution driven
*results
Bitcoin just gained a lot more confidence.
March 12, 2013, 09:07:29 AM
regular users don't need to do nothing, only miners should downgrade or should not increase the target block size from the default.
Given the bdb bug, I would say miners need to upgrade to 0.8, but should not increase the blocksize (or make any changes, for that matter) until everyone has upgraded, and until more testing is done. March 12, 2013, 09:06:30 AM
How do i do a -rescan?
when you start bitcoin-qt (or bitcoin-qt.exe) add -rescan to the command line.it will take much longer to start, but all the transactions inside your wallet should eventually appear confirmed, assuming that you see them confirmed at i.e. http://blockchain.info/
that fixed it, thanks for the tip... though do i need blk0001-3.dat? theres 3 files each being 2gb.
March 12, 2013, 09:05:03 AM
regular users don't need to do nothing, only miners should downgrade or should not increase the target block size from the default.
I thought miners "were" suppose to downgrade, but now the issue has been addressed.
March 12, 2013, 08:59:33 AM
regular users don't need to do nothing, only miners should downgrade or should not increase the target block size from the default.
March 12, 2013, 08:58:20 AM
So what is the procedure for those (regular users) who want to continue using 0.8.0 without causing issues? Is there a database config variable to set or something?
Downgrading seems like a bad idea for regular users.
Downgrading seems like a bad idea for regular users.
Don't downgrade. You aren't a concern unless you are a miner.
March 12, 2013, 08:56:49 AM
So what is the procedure for those (regular users) who want to continue using 0.8.0 without causing issues? Is there a database config variable to set or something?
Downgrading seems like a bad idea for regular users.
Downgrading seems like a bad idea for regular users.
March 12, 2013, 08:51:46 AM
How do i do a -rescan?
when you start bitcoin-qt (or bitcoin-qt.exe) add -rescan to the command line.it will take much longer to start, but all the transactions inside your wallet should eventually appear confirmed, assuming that you see them confirmed at i.e. http://blockchain.info/
March 12, 2013, 08:47:01 AM
i have a bunch of unconfirmed bitcoins when i reverted back to 0.8
did you try to start it with "-rescan"?How do i do a -rescan? Yesterday after downgrading to 0.7 i got a cannot read blkindex.dat... now that i reverted back to 0.8 now more than half of my wallet is unconfirmed.
should i delete the blkindex.dat and the blk000x.dat files?
March 12, 2013, 08:39:32 AM
i have a bunch of unconfirmed bitcoins when i reverted back to 0.8
did you try to start it with "-rescan"? March 12, 2013, 08:38:40 AM
i have a bunch of unconfirmed bitcoins when i reverted back to 0.8
March 12, 2013, 08:35:42 AM
A hard fork like this would require the intentional support of a majority of merchants.
Sure. But how is it unintentional to accept blocks longer than 250KB, after the "majority" (expressed in the hashing power) upgraded their clients to a version that accepts blocks larger than 250KB? 
And they upgraded it not because they had no reason - they actually had a very good reason.
March 12, 2013, 08:35:33 AM
The only question is when does it happen and who will lose out because of it.
The really important question is what would have happened if there wasn't a coordinated effort to help the "correct" fork?It is important to keep in mind that this kind of problems are rare and have been already been thought about. Bitcoin as whole is resilient against this kind of problems. When two versions of Bitcoin nodes cannot agree on interpretation of the rules then miners vote with their feet. They either upgrade or downgrade.
The only thing interesting about this incident is that a small group of most potent miners have changed the outcome by dumping their version. It seems that at the beginning version 0.8 was winning and everyone would be forced to upgrade to that version on very short notice. Only when operators of big pools decided to downgrade, branch on which version 0.7 worked took over.
The issue got everyone by surprise mainly because old version (0.7) had a surplus rule/feature limiting block size. Was problem known before, developers would first release a version which accepts large blocks but does not produce them. Only when almost everyone would upgrade to that version, large blocks would be produced.
Actually this is what we are having now. Version 0.8 with default configuration accepts large blocks but does not produce them.
March 12, 2013, 08:29:09 AM
Please explain to me whether I'm on my pool is now updated to version 0.8?
March 12, 2013, 08:25:11 AM
The only question is when does it happen and who will lose out because of it.
The really important question is what would have happened if there wasn't a coordinated effort to help the "correct" fork?A hard fork like this would require the intentional support of a majority of merchants.
Short of an emergency, that means everyone will be given at least 2 years to upgrade.
Jump to: