Bitcoin supply discrepancy | Bitcointalksearch.org

o_e_l_e_o

legendary

Activity: 2268

Merit: 18771

Quote from: larry_vw_1955 on April 01, 2022, 07:28:55 PM

so if it was faulty code, it cost them about half a million dollars Shocked

Well, at the time it was closer to ~$160,000.

Quote from: larry_vw_1955 on April 01, 2022, 07:28:55 PM

the question is: have they fixed that bug now?

Who knows. The mistake hasn't been repeated though, so presumably the miner realized their mistake and changed their code so it wouldn't happen again, although as far as I am aware no one has ever admitted it was their fault. There are still a number of pools including RSK commitments to their coinbase transactions, such as Binance, AntPool, and Poolin.

darkv0rt3x

hero member

Activity: 1274

Merit: 681

I rather die on my feet than to live on my knees

Quote from: n0nce on March 31, 2022, 07:07:34 PM

Quote from: darkv0rt3x on March 31, 2022, 02:20:23 PM

Nice work @n0nce. Do you have a dedicated thread to this project or you just have what you posted here? I found it interesting as I also like to do small things at home in my (little) spare time.

I'm going to make a new topic for the project, haven't had the time to do it yet.

Also: my first post of this year's April first and I see this.. Grin

Good job, theymos.

Nice. Let me know when you create it. I always enjoy to see what others are up to when it involves electronics, programming and Bitcoin. Those can always be interesting projects to follow. I'm still looking for "mine" but I always come short of imagination/ideas.

larry_vw_1955

sr. member

Activity: 1190

Merit: 469

Quote from: pooya87 on March 31, 2022, 10:40:39 PM

One of the 2 most recent blocks (501,726) seems to be a failed attempt in merge mining RootStock, the miner successfully includes the RSK block hashes but forgets to also include another output claiming the block's reward. Possibly in their code, instead of adding the output to the output array they replaced the array with a new one.

so if it was faulty code, it cost them about half a million dollars Shocked

could have hired alot of software people to make sure it worked properly and had money left over. the question is: have they fixed that bug now? since it apparently hasn't happen again maybe but maybe they just didn't mine another block again.

n0nce

hero member

Activity: 924

Merit: 5943

not your keys, not your coins!

Quote from: BlackHatCoiner on April 01, 2022, 11:14:36 AM

If you want more suggestions,

Chain size.
Blocks until next difficulty.
Blocks until next halving.
Hash rate.

Proud to be a Bitcoin geek.

Thanks, those are great suggestions!

I believe I'll split it up into multiple screens then:
Blockchain Data

Block height
Bitcoin mined
Blockchain size

Mining

Blocks until next diff
Blocks until next halving
Hashrate

Mempool

Size
Fee fastest
Fee medium
Fee slow

Price

USD per coin
[insert other currency] per coin
sat per USD
sat per [insert other currency]

Lightning

Capacity
Number of channels
...

It would become tricky to set a useful speed though; if it's too fast, you can't read it in time and it is distracting. If it's too slow, you can miss milestones like the 19M BTC (it was fun to watch it live!)..

Maybe I'll just try to get my hands on 2 more panels.. Grin

I think I'll stop these ideas here though and continue once I have the new thread set up, so we can stay on-topic in the off-chance that someone has some more to say about the Bitcoin supply discrepancy.

BlackHatCoiner

legendary

Activity: 1512

Merit: 7340

Farewell, Leo

If you want more suggestions,

Chain size.
Blocks until next difficulty.
Blocks until next halving.
Hash rate.

Proud to be a Bitcoin geek.

n0nce

hero member

Activity: 924

Merit: 5943

not your keys, not your coins!

Quote from: dkbit98 on April 01, 2022, 05:46:50 AM

Quote from: n0nce on March 31, 2022, 10:06:22 AM

Sneak peek of my latest weekend project. Grin

I'll clean up the code and start a topic for this with all the info like where to find the parts and what to install etc., in the next days but I wanted to have it up and running before block #19M. What do you guys think?

This looks amazing but I would personally change the color of led lights to make it more visible, if that is even possible.
One more thing I would add is transaction fee estimates from mempool, either in sat/vB units or in inflationary unstable USD currency.
Now all you have to do is proper naming for this little project Wink

Thanks for the feedback.

In real life, it is actually a pretty vibrant shade of magenta, but it's just very hard to photograph well. I will try again with better light for the dedicated thread.
These things are just insanely bright, even on a low setting, since they're usually screwed together into those Times Square - type LED billboards. They have all the connectors in the back so it can easily be done as long as you have enough power. I'm pretty sure the microcontroller and library do even support 'chained' panels. For my needs this size is fine for now, but I thought about getting a second one and screwing them onto a wooden panel for a vertical layout.

So for now, what I'd like to add (thanks to your suggestions here):

Lightning Network capacity
Satoshi / $ (very useful, I have that as a phone widget)
Fees in sat/vB

It will probably be kind of 2 screens that cycle, since otherwise it'd get too crammed. Though I do have 4 empty 'lines' at the moment so 3 more sets of information would theoretically fit.
If you've got name suggestions, I'd be glad to hear them! 'Block Clock' is already taken. Wink

Edit: New layout currently looks like follows. It's not too crammed honestly.

Code:

729983 blk
18,999,893
   20sat/vB

  45438.11$
  2200sat/$

   3:59

dkbit98

legendary

Activity: 2212

Merit: 7064

Quote from: n0nce on March 31, 2022, 10:06:22 AM

Sneak peek of my latest weekend project. Grin

I'll clean up the code and start a topic for this with all the info like where to find the parts and what to install etc., in the next days but I wanted to have it up and running before block #19M. What do you guys think?

This looks amazing but I would personally change the color of led lights to make it more visible, if that is even possible.
One more thing I would add is transaction fee estimates from mempool, either in sat/vB units or in inflationary unstable USD currency.
Now all you have to do is proper naming for this little project Wink

pooya87

legendary

Activity: 3472

Merit: 10611

Quote from: larry_vw_1955 on March 31, 2022, 07:19:51 PM

has any miners actually comment on this happening to them? and did they say why? seems like a very strange thing.

One of the 2 most recent blocks (501,726) seems to be a failed attempt in merge mining RootStock, the miner successfully includes the RSK block hashes but forgets to also include another output claiming the block's reward. Possibly in their code, instead of adding the output to the output array they replaced the array with a new one.

larry_vw_1955

sr. member

Activity: 1190

Merit: 469

Quote from: achow101 on March 31, 2022, 05:42:22 PM

Quote from: pooya87 on March 31, 2022, 10:44:09 AM

Considering most of these things happened in early days

A couple of these losses have occurred relatively recently. This stackexchange post enumerates many of the instances where miners failed to claim their full reward, with the most recent occurring in 2018.

has any miners actually comment on this happening to them? and did they say why? seems like a very strange thing.

n0nce

hero member

Activity: 924

Merit: 5943

not your keys, not your coins!

Quote from: darkv0rt3x on March 31, 2022, 02:20:23 PM

Nice work @n0nce. Do you have a dedicated thread to this project or you just have what you posted here? I found it interesting as I also like to do small things at home in my (little) spare time.

I'm going to make a new topic for the project, haven't had the time to do it yet.

Also: my first post of this year's April first and I see this.. Grin

Good job, theymos.

achow101

staff

Activity: 3458

Merit: 6793

Just writing some code

Quote from: pooya87 on March 31, 2022, 10:44:09 AM

Considering most of these things happened in early days

A couple of these losses have occurred relatively recently. This stackexchange post enumerates many of the instances where miners failed to claim their full reward, with the most recent occurring in 2018.

darkv0rt3x

hero member

Activity: 1274

Merit: 681

I rather die on my feet than to live on my knees

Nice work @n0nce. Do you have a dedicated thread to this project or you just have what you posted here? I found it interesting as I also like to do small things at home in my (little) spare time.

BlackHatCoiner

legendary

Activity: 1512

Merit: 7340

Farewell, Leo

Quote from: pooya87 on March 31, 2022, 10:44:09 AM

P.S. Did testnet exist from the start? The wiki only has a timestamp for version 3.

Testnet was introduced in v0.3.14, which was released in October 2010.

Quote from: satoshi on October 21, 2010, 11:39:27 AM

Version 0.3.14 is now available
http://sourceforge.net/projects/bitcoin/files/Bitcoin/bitcoin-0.3.14/

Changes:
- Key pool feature for safer wallet backup
Gavin Andresen:
- TEST network mode with switch -testnet
- Option to use SSL for JSON-RPC connections on unix/osx
- validateaddress RPC command
eurekafag:
- Russian translation

And in Bitcoin time, that must have happened around in block 86700. They could have used the testnet.

Quote from: n0nce on March 31, 2022, 10:06:22 AM

What do you guys think?

Nice! One thing I'd also add is sats per dollar.

Quote from: n0nce on March 31, 2022, 10:06:22 AM

The next million will take around 4 more years, if my calculations are correct, right?

It's 110,148 blocks 'til next halving. That's 688,425 BTC. Then, it's 311,575 BTC left which will take 311,575 / 3.125 = 99,704 blocks. So, we're 110,148 + 99,704 = 209,852 blocks far. That's ~1457 days = 3.94 years. Yep.

pooya87

legendary

Activity: 3472

Merit: 10611

Quote from: BlackHatCoiner on March 31, 2022, 09:24:34 AM

I'm sure most of those happened due to a wrongly configured setup. Whoever wants to test things does it in testnet. For those who want to "do good" there are hundreds of better ways I can think of, other than burning coins for the "common good".

Considering most of these things happened in early days it could be simply because bitcoin didn't really have that much value and people were playing around with it. It's kind of absurd to think about it now but losing 50BTC meant wasted computation time (maybe 30 min) on your CPU to mine one block.

P.S. Did testnet exist from the start? The wiki only has a timestamp for version 3.

n0nce

hero member

Activity: 924

Merit: 5943

not your keys, not your coins!

Sneak peek of my latest weekend project. Grin

I'll clean up the code and start a topic for this with all the info like where to find the parts and what to install etc., in the next days but I wanted to have it up and running before block #19M. What do you guys think?
It looks a lot better in real life; it's very hard to photograph very bright individual LEDs, as it turns out.

I had seen this video, but due to component availability stuff and prices, ended up buying an older, ESP32-based adapter board from Tindie. But the details will follow.

I also need to find a way to keep it upright, because it does stand on its own or leaned against something, but every time it does fall, it crashes onto the circuitry on the back. Roll Eyes

Best would be a way to put it on the wall.

For now, I can count the last 1000 blocks until 19M.
The next million will take around 4 more years, if my calculations are correct, right?

BlackHatCoiner

legendary

Activity: 1512

Merit: 7340

Farewell, Leo

Quote from: vjudeu on March 31, 2022, 05:23:10 AM

if you want to have an altcoin that is 1:1 covered with Bitcoin and it is one-way-ticket, then you can mine it just by getting less coins in the coinbase transaction, then for burning 1 BTC you can get 1 ALT. It would be better if Counterparty would do such things, rather than sending coins to 1CounterpartyXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXUWLpVr

There's no need to do either of those. Just use OP_RETURN and within those few bytes insert the destination (usually it's a hash) of the altcoin's address, plus some extra info such as the alt's prefix. That's the most convenient way to say "Hey, I'm burning these for the 29th dog coin".

Quote from: Pmalek on March 31, 2022, 03:57:04 AM

But why? Is this their good will? Is it a wrongly configured setup, or a bug that affected miners who mined those particular blocks? I don't see why they would turn down the block reward voluntarily.

I'm sure most of those happened due to a wrongly configured setup. Whoever wants to test things does it in testnet. For those who want to "do good" there are hundreds of better ways I can think of, other than burning coins for the "common good".

o_e_l_e_o

legendary

Activity: 2268

Merit: 18771

Quote from: Pmalek on March 31, 2022, 03:57:04 AM

But why? Is this their good will? Is it a wrongly configured setup, or a bug that affected miners who mined those particular blocks? I don't see why they would turn down the block reward voluntarily.

Rarely because they intended to. Sometimes because of a bug. Sometimes because of poorly implemented code. Sometimes because they were trying to do something else and messed up. Sometimes we don't know. The only limit in the protocol is that the sum of all the outputs in a block must be equal or less than the sum of all the inputs plus the block subsidy. This places an upper limit that the miner can claim in the coinbase transaction (subsidy + fees), but places no lower limit, so it is perfectly valid for miners to claim less or nothing at all.

Quote from: vjudeu on March 31, 2022, 05:23:10 AM

if you want to have an altcoin that is 1:1 covered with Bitcoin and it is one-way-ticket, then you can mine it just by getting less coins in the coinbase transaction, then for burning 1 BTC you can get 1 ALT. It would be better if Counterparty would do such things, rather than sending coins to 1CounterpartyXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXUWLpVr (because they are unlikely to be moved, but it may be possible by finding some matching key, so they are not entirely lost).

But such a set up would require everyone who wants to be able to own the altcoin to be able to mine a bitcoin block, which would never work: People who care about pointless shitcoins don't have enough ASICs to mine a solo block, and big mining pools aren't going to trade some of their reward for some pointless shitcoin that the majority of their miners don't want.

vjudeu

copper member

Activity: 909

Merit: 2301

For the same reason why people burn coins. Just because they can and it is valid. It is better way of burning coins than sending them to OP_RETURN, because it costs zero additional on-chain bytes. Most of the time it is just a bug or misconfiguration, but the same way of burning can be used in any Proof of Burn protocols: if you want to have an altcoin that is 1:1 covered with Bitcoin and it is one-way-ticket, then you can mine it just by getting less coins in the coinbase transaction, then for burning 1 BTC you can get 1 ALT. It would be better if Counterparty would do such things, rather than sending coins to 1CounterpartyXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXUWLpVr (because they are unlikely to be moved, but it may be possible by finding some matching key, so they are not entirely lost).

Pmalek

legendary

Activity: 2730

Merit: 7065

Quote from: o_e_l_e_o on March 31, 2022, 03:39:05 AM

block 501726 claimed zero of the allowed 12.5 BTC.
Block 526591 claimed 6.25 of the allowed 12.5 BTC.
Block 164246 failed to claim any of the 1.76 BTC in fees.

But why? Is this their good will? Is it a wrongly configured setup, or a bug that affected miners who mined those particular blocks? I don't see why they would turn down the block reward voluntarily.

o_e_l_e_o

legendary

Activity: 2268

Merit: 18771

Quote from: pooya87 on March 30, 2022, 10:23:31 PM

There was a block with X BTC reward that the miner didn't claim, in order to change that there needs to be a hard fork which is not going to happen for something this trivial.

There were many such blocks. A few larger examples:

Block 501726 claimed zero of the allowed 12.5 BTC.
Block 526591 claimed 6.25 of the allowed 12.5 BTC.
Block 164246 failed to claim any of the 1.76 BTC in fees.

Also note that block 91842 has a coinbase transaction which is identical to block 91812, and block 91880 has a coinbase transaction which is identical to block 91722. Since these transactions are identical, with identical hashes, they can only be spent once, meaning in each case 50 BTC was lost. (This bug was fixed in BIP 30.)

Also, the genesis coinbase transaction isn't part of the UTXO set, and so will not be counted by gettxoutsetinfo. The same applies to OP_RETURN outputs.

As noted, all these coins are provably and irretrievably lost. They can be permanently removed from the maximum supply.

Topic: Bitcoin supply discrepancy (Read 445 times)