Topic: [ANN] Litecoin - a lite version of Bitcoin. Launched! - page 280. (Read 1467278 times)

159 k to 167 I got a good profit

Thanks Thrasher

I work on Litecoin Core and know about this testnet issue, I was the one who also made a post advising users to stop mining on 0.8.7.x and upgrade to 0.10.2.2 whilst also setting up a private pool to orphan the version 2 chain. After our notification and to encourage others to begin mining, I lowered my testnet pools mining intensity. In doing so, version 2 blocks got the lead again which lasted in a small fork. If you actually looked at testnet recently, you would see that this issue has now been corrected and my pool settings will permanently stay like this until I see no more 0.8.x miners (subject to availability obviously). The block height is currently at 646208 in which I'm currently connected to over 25 nodes (similar to the dedicated testnet node we have setup), all reflecting this. This can also be verified by a block explorer site like http://blockchains.io/ltct/blocks/

Also, please don't make ridiculous claims that we don't know what we are doing, we know very well what is in Litecoin Core, including the causation of this and we know how to resolve issues like this (as shown above) and is why we contacted all pools to make sure that mainnet encounters a smooth transition for BIP66 activation (which has had 0 problems). Your concern stating that 'if somebody managed to split the testnet that far there maybe a bug lurking in the code that could be used to split the mainnet' is clearly unfounded and shows inadequate knowledge of how this issue occurs. If people could do it on mainnet, they would. BTW, this issue also occurred on Bitcoin's testnet https://blog.blocktrail.com/2015/06/bitcoin-testnet-is-forking-19-blocks-deep-and-counting/, admittedly it isn't a good thing to have happen on testnet, but both Bitcoin and Litecoin devs were extremely focused on mainnet BIP66 activation, as testnet is low priority which can always be reset accordingly if things go haywire (which has been done in the past).

So this means that LTC has forked? Sure is not reflected in its price though.

This coin revived

It turns as I was expecting, in other words the problem is back after less than a week:

1) the 0.10.2.2 chain got stuck at block 645801 (which was approximately 14 hours ago) and all further mined blocks don't propagate anymore

2) meanwhile the old chain running 0.8.7.5 an earlier is now at around 645939 and slowly getting further ahead.

3) which confirms my suspicion that there were no real developers looking at the problem and that probably Litecoin developers don't understand the new code their imported from Bitcoin.

Ok all done now

https://litecointalk.org/index.php?topic=26793.msg278378#msg278378

We now have the direct mining port opened up for exclusive Litecoin mining.

Variable DIFF:

stratum+tcp://mine.xpool.ca:2002 (diff 8 - 8192)

Fixed DIFF (Minimum = 512):

stratum+tcp://mine.xpool.ca:3002 (diff 512)

See here for config setup:

http://www.xpool.ca/configuration_guide

Cheers!

Issue resolved, will have more information tomorrow .

So...

Any of "the devs" still alive?

The only non-dead public block explorer for Litecoin's testnet shows the last block as 641435 mined 5 days ago (although the page says "2 days ago").

I'm CPU-mining on that fork with optimum speed that wouldn't rise difficulty from the minimum, which according to my calculations is about 3500 hashes per seconds to stay at difficulty equal to the minimum of 1/4096. I'm currently up to 64196 as of this writing, but I don't see a way to verify that anyone was able to synchronize off of my machines. And they are for sure accessible from outside, both via IPv4 and IPv6. I did receive and mined some transactions earlier today, so some communication does exist, because I don't currently transact on my internal Litecoin testnet nodes, only CPU-mine.

The competing chain seems to be at block 644512 and is getting mined at difficulty 0.00312973
which is ~2.8 times higher than the minimum. While that would be still in the CPU-mining range, I have my test servers in storage and I'm not looking forward into deploying them.

This situation is indeed very worrying, because it clearly shows Litecoin Core client as faulty.

Quoting for future reference:

Anyone here can post their current experience of synchronizing with the Litecoin's testnet? If possible do both resynchronizing the old install and a fresh resynchronization from scratch as another user on the same hardware and with same software.

Any update about it?

I'm still worried how this kind of fork can exist.

Hi all
I'm one of the last optimists who trying to solo mine LTC, but with the last wallet update i'm not able to connect the miner to the wallet.
I'm using windows7 and KNC Titans (bfgminer 5.1.0). My conf file is fine.
Is there anything I can do to fix it except to make my own pool?

Thanks in advance

Don't know what you mean, it's down 200% at least

LTC UP

Litecoin just got pumped, don't know what you're talking about. What about monero, dash, bitcoindark, etc etc....

Ahh ok thanks, I've passed the word on to the devs.

I'm not sure if we are talking about the same kind of fork. I'm talking about the two valid branches both running 0.10.2.2 code. Yesterday I had this reproduced with one machine at 0.10.2.2 Macintosh and the other 0.10.2.2 Windows. Today I added another copy on the Windows machine (running as another user). This way I have exactly the same code running on the exactly same hardware, the only difference are directories with the data and port numbers for the network traffic.

The fork starts after block 641334, the first different block is 641335.
Those aren't trivial short forks, they are several hundred blocks long
although the comparison above isn't completely fair, because I was starting and stopping those tasks as well as opening and closing respective network ports in the firewall (external to Windows).

Can someone with an account at litecointalk.org repost this message there and ask for the comments from the developers?

My thinking is that if somebody managed to split the testnet that far there maybe a bug lurking in the code that could be used to split the mainnet.

There was a soft fork yes, you can read the latest post from the devs on it. https://litecointalk.org/index.php?topic=26151.0

Did Litecoin testnet forked?

On my test machines {no real money or important data involved} I noticed that Macintosh 0.10.2.2 is at block 641381, whereas the Windows 0.10.2.2 is at block 641439. Litecoin mainnet and both Bitcoin nets are still staying in sync on the same physical hardware.

Those are test machines, so I blew away 'chainstate' and 'blocks' directories on Macintosh and restarted the synchronization with -connect to the Windows machine. The synchronization stalled at block 640000 with repeated errors:

ERROR: ContextualCheckBlockHeader : rejected nVersion=2 block
ERROR: invalid header received

The synchronization went 381 blocks further when I removed -connect and let it synchronize from the Internet.

Anyone here knows what is going on?

Heya,

Today we added Litecoin (LTC) as a payout option on our multipool, www.xpool.ca

We will also soon add so it can also be mined directly.

Cheers!