Blockchain split of 4 July 2015 - page 14.

jonald_fyookball

legendary

Activity: 1302

Merit: 1008

Core dev leaves me neg feedback #abuse #political

Quote from: Quickseller on July 04, 2015, 05:15:19 PM

Quote from: ?? on ??

Quote from: Quickseller on July 04, 2015, 03:49:36 PM

it would never be valid.

This is why people shouldn't have relied on any transaction as being confirmed except those that were showing as confirmed by something that got its info from Bitcoin core.

I know where you're coming from but the bold is untrue. In theory and practice the longest blockchain becomes dominant.

Since most of the world's nodes and miners use the newest Bitcoin Core there was no problem this time, but if China decided to fire up a bunch of miners using the old protocol then Bitcoin Core users would've been the ones on the wrong chain. This is one of the inherent dangers of forks and why they need to be used as little as possible.

Pretty remarkable our community was almost entirely unaware of this fork, I guess considering the XT backlash the devs didn't want to make it well known publicly until it was already done.

No you are incorrect on two fronts.

I could (somewhat) easily create a blockchain that is 400,000 blocks long (roughy 37,000 blocks longer then the current blockchain) however in order for me to do this I would need to adjust the timestamps of my found blocks so that the current difficulty would be significantly lower then it is today. This would result in a longer blockchain, but one with less total work then the current blockchain. The chain with the greatest total work is the valid Bitcoin blockchain - this is usually going to also be the longest one, however in my example it would not be.

If miners are mining invalid blocks, then they would be mining on an alt coin's blockchain, and it would not be Bitcoin's blockchain....if this altcoin would have any value would be a separate question.

I think you are right from the point of the view that assuming the miners EVENTUALLY all switch to the 'correct' version, then THAT will become the longest chain.
However, I think turtlehurricane could be correct in the situation where a long chain is built that ignores, say a certain BIP, and then the community decides
to throw that out for now and just keep mining on the main chain that has been built. Either way, its going to boil down to the consensus of the community
and which version they ultimately choose. However, it will be damaging to Bitcoin if at any point there is a long reorg.

Quickseller

copper member

Activity: 2996

Merit: 2374

Quote from: ?? on ??

Quote from: Quickseller on July 04, 2015, 03:49:36 PM

it would never be valid.

This is why people shouldn't have relied on any transaction as being confirmed except those that were showing as confirmed by something that got its info from Bitcoin core.

I know where you're coming from but the bold is untrue. In theory and practice the longest blockchain becomes dominant.

Since most of the world's nodes and miners use the newest Bitcoin Core there was no problem this time, but if China decided to fire up a bunch of miners using the old protocol then Bitcoin Core users would've been the ones on the wrong chain. This is one of the inherent dangers of forks and why they need to be used as little as possible.

Pretty remarkable our community was almost entirely unaware of this fork, I guess considering the XT backlash the devs didn't want to make it well known publicly until it was already done.

No you are incorrect on two fronts.

I could (somewhat) easily create a blockchain that is 400,000 blocks long (roughy 37,000 blocks longer then the current blockchain) however in order for me to do this I would need to adjust the timestamps of my found blocks so that the current difficulty would be significantly lower then it is today. This would result in a longer blockchain, but one with less total work then the current blockchain. The chain with the greatest total work is the valid Bitcoin blockchain - this is usually going to also be the longest one, however in my example it would not be.

If miners are mining invalid blocks, then they would be mining on an alt coin's blockchain, and it would not be Bitcoin's blockchain....if this altcoin would have any value would be a separate question.

Bitcoin_BOy$

hero member

Activity: 854

Merit: 503

|| Web developer ||

Hello when should this be resolved and even can it e resolved ?? I hope no ones loose his trust in Bitcoin and leave it just like
that !

Bitcoin Boy.

Brangdon

sr. member

Activity: 365

Merit: 251

Quote from: wpalczynski on July 04, 2015, 01:11:26 PM

Quote from: foxbitcoin on July 04, 2015, 01:09:41 PM

Can you explain what happened to transactions that were recorded in the unintentional hard fork, which failed?

Invalid, went back to original address.

Won't most transactions have been propagated onto both sides of the fork? If that happens, the same transaction would get confirmed on both forks and it wouldn't matter to it which fork won. A double-spend attempt could mess this up, but if the sender is honest, the fork shouldn't matter.

Quickseller

copper member

Activity: 2996

Merit: 2374

Quote from: jonald_fyookball on July 04, 2015, 03:42:44 PM

Quote from: matt4054 on July 04, 2015, 03:37:00 PM

Quote from: RealBitcoin on July 04, 2015, 04:24:32 AM

OMG WTF guys? I`m getting scared.

So if i just send now a transaction, then i lose my bitcoins and it doesnt get to the other end?

Also what if i buy now bitcoin with € do i get fake bitcoin if the merchant is on wrong chain?

This could be a serious problem. No FUD intended but seriously, i`m starting to panic/ Huh

Is it just me or is the impact of this non-event severely exaggerated?

It didn't have much direct impact this time... however, I think there is reason to be concerned.
Imagine if 48% of the hashing power was on the 'wrong' fork instead of 35% or
whatever it was. You start running into the possibility of a real split network that won't
converge on its own.

It behooves the community to examine the process by which pools and nodes stay updated.
Honestly, a pool watchdog would be a good thing, to make sure all major pools are operating
on the same codebase. Or if someone has better ideas, pls share.

I believe that more then 50% of the network was actually mining on the invalid chain for some time. Regardless of how long it would become, it would never be valid.

This is why people shouldn't have relied on any transaction as being confirmed except those that were showing as confirmed by something that got its info from Bitcoin core.

jonald_fyookball

legendary

Activity: 1302

Merit: 1008

Core dev leaves me neg feedback #abuse #political

Quote from: matt4054 on July 04, 2015, 03:37:00 PM

Quote from: RealBitcoin on July 04, 2015, 04:24:32 AM

OMG WTF guys? I`m getting scared.

So if i just send now a transaction, then i lose my bitcoins and it doesnt get to the other end?

Also what if i buy now bitcoin with € do i get fake bitcoin if the merchant is on wrong chain?

This could be a serious problem. No FUD intended but seriously, i`m starting to panic/ Huh

Is it just me or is the impact of this non-event severely exaggerated?

It didn't have much direct impact this time... however, I think there is reason to be concerned.
Imagine if 48% of the hashing power was on the 'wrong' fork instead of 35% or
whatever it was. You start running into the possibility of a real split network that won't
converge on its own.

It behooves the community to examine the process by which pools and nodes stay updated.
Honestly, a pool watchdog would be a good thing, to make sure all major pools are operating
on the same codebase. Or if someone has better ideas, pls share.

matt4054

legendary

Activity: 1946

Merit: 1035

Quote from: RealBitcoin on July 04, 2015, 04:24:32 AM

OMG WTF guys? I`m getting scared.

So if i just send now a transaction, then i lose my bitcoins and it doesnt get to the other end?

Also what if i buy now bitcoin with € do i get fake bitcoin if the merchant is on wrong chain?

This could be a serious problem. No FUD intended but seriously, i`m starting to panic/ Huh

Is it just me or is the impact of this non-event severely exaggerated?

ElectricMucus

legendary

Activity: 1666

Merit: 1057

Marketing manager - GO MP

anti-fragile my ass

luthermarcus

full member

Activity: 213

Merit: 100

Quote from: notbatman on July 04, 2015, 02:52:35 PM

You can mine the correct chain with the pools listed here (the chain the exchanges use Roll Eyes

):

http://p2pool.jir.dk/bitcoin/?allnodes=1

ok most of those havent upgraded to 14.0 which p2pool should be on. I wouldn't recommend mine on those.

Below is a better scanner use only ones that are on version 14.0
http://nodes.p2pool.co/

Exodus3322111

newbie

Activity: 3

Merit: 0

If any wallet does not allow older version blocks, will that be a considered "fix"?

notbatman

legendary

Activity: 2212

Merit: 1038

You can mine the correct chain with the pools listed here (the chain the exchanges use Roll Eyes

):

http://p2pool.jir.dk/bitcoin/?allnodes=1

oniromancia

newbie

Activity: 56

Merit: 0

So it appears like f2pool is not validating blocks according to v3 rule and there we got a fork at 363731 followed by a massive amount of orphans coming from f2p and antpool. Personally i had no trouble with running SPV client. But seems like there is no much concern since both pools are now fixed.

luthermarcus

full member

Activity: 213

Merit: 100

I have yet to hear from someone who was negatively affected by this other than the large centralized pools.
This was preplanned and v4 is the next step but there is not set date just set requirements.

notbatman

legendary

Activity: 2212

Merit: 1038

Oh, the 4th is the point v3 threshhold hit 95%, it looks to me like the bad blocks started on June 16th as that's when blockchain.info got corrupted. I use p2pool so this SPV business is something I'm oblivious to and it looks like it caused more bad chains.

cyberpinoy

hero member

Activity: 1008

Merit: 502

Quote from: notbatman on July 04, 2015, 01:51:24 PM

Where are you guys getting this 4th of July date from?

https://bitcoin.org/en/alert/2015-07-04-spv-mining

oops someone beat me to it,

however to sum it up in a sarcastic way we got the info by completely reading the whole OP including his edits and reading the links he provided.

jl2012

legendary

Activity: 1792

Merit: 1111

Quote from: notbatman on July 04, 2015, 01:51:24 PM

Fail at breaking Bitcoin.

My records indicate the "issue" started on June 16 and lasted until the 23rd when transactions from the 17th and 22nd showed up. blockchain.info's database corruption also starts on the 16th and is corrupt/wrong chain until the 26th. I upgraded p2pool to v14 on the 28th.

Everything has been hunky dory since the 23rd with the only issue being a minor decrease in payout rate for a few days due to me not noticing the push for a some hours and, possibly a bit of mining on the wrong chain until the v14 update.

This is a very minor hiccup if you've mined in the alt-coin mining space, where things go very wrong sometimes.

Where are you guys getting this 4th of July date from?

https://bitcoin.org/en/alert/2015-07-04-spv-mining

notbatman

legendary

Activity: 2212

Merit: 1038

Fail at breaking Bitcoin.

My records indicate the "issue" started on June 16 and lasted until the 23rd when transactions from the 17th and 22nd showed up. blockchain.info's database corruption also starts on the 16th and is corrupt/wrong chain until the 26th. I upgraded p2pool to v14 on the 28th.

Everything has been hunky dory since the 23rd with the only issue being a minor decrease in payout rate for a few days due to me not noticing the push for a some hours and, possibly a bit of mining on the wrong chain until the v14 update.

This is a very minor hiccup if you've mined in the alt-coin mining space, where things go very wrong sometimes.

Where are you guys getting this 4th of July date from?

Syke

legendary

Activity: 3878

Merit: 1193

Quote from: redsn0w on July 04, 2015, 01:10:24 PM

2-3 halvings? I think that as early as next halving 50 BTC >> 25 BTC the 'miners' will change their actual tactic and start to accept everything without any insane rules

.

That could be as soon as next year, which would be great. Fees are still under 1% of the block value, but after the next halving they could be over 1%. That might be enough.

Soros Shorts

donator

Activity: 1617

Merit: 1012

Quote from: Slark on July 04, 2015, 09:47:50 AM

Quote from: yayayo on July 04, 2015, 09:05:25 AM

A very serious event for sure - but seems to have been mostly fixed already.

It shows, that relying on SPV wallets is not a good idea at all. Only full nodes offer full security. That's why excessive increases in blocksize are dangerous: The number of full nodes will decline further, because the average user doesn't have the resources to run them. In turn, the system as a whole will become less secure and more vulnerable to events like this.

ya.ya.yo!

What kind of resource are you talkin about? The only thing you need really is disc space (for now blockchain info is about 42GB big) every stationary PC or laptop is capable of storing more.
It is not resources we lack, it is that people are lazy is the problem.

I have run my own pool (p2pool) on crap hardware which was a quad-core i5 with 8GB RAM. When my node received a new block, it took 5 seconds for bitcoind on my quad-core i5 to validate the < 1MB block. That is 5 full seconds when my miners could not do any useful work work. So you see it is not just the disk space that is used up when block go bigger - pools and mining nodes would have to invest in faster processors as well or they will lose the edge.

trafficolaa

legendary

Activity: 1008

Merit: 1000

Is online web wallet are safe for transaction as i am using coinbase web wallet so i have to wait for that 30 confirmations, how can we know that incoming transaction is from the right fork and cant be double spend?

Topic: Blockchain split of 4 July 2015 - page 14. (Read 45635 times)