Pages:
Author

Topic: Blockchain split of 4 July 2015 - page 9. (Read 45588 times)

hero member
Activity: 686
Merit: 500
July 06, 2015, 04:48:40 AM
I have a hard time believing that F2pool and AntPool did this by accident.

However I also cant see their profit motive in this case since everyone knew what was happening.

It seems they just wasted time/money on the wrong chain with no benefit.

What am I missing?
hero member
Activity: 659
Merit: 502
July 06, 2015, 04:47:25 AM
I sent btc to yobit but its weird that my btc did not show up on account instead auto withdrawal to another btc address,i never encounter such thing before,does this blockchain problem or what i dont know,i only know i lost my bitcoin

that btc address to who belongs, it is your? because it sounds like your account there is hacked(your pc is infected maybe) or something, and this has nothing to do with the blockchain split
I have 2fact on my account,i dont know who belongs that btc withdrawal address,its happen automatically i eve check on my account history its not recorded for deposit nor withdrawal just like its happened on blockchain

2fact with email or phone? because it looks more and more like a steal and not a related issue of the blockchain split, that will not cause such a thing btw

but i'm curious can you post the address?
I am using google 2fact for android this is my btc address https://blockchain.info/address/14s5Fnf2twWsDaDvskkrBFqorrnSub7JSn
You can see there are a withdrawal at 18:48:30,i dont know why my bitcoin will sent to there


I just received my bitcoin on yobit,seem its delayed for hours now is fine
Try their support first, when you encounter a problem.
I think, most services you sent Bitcoin to, don't keep it in the address you sent it do, but forward it to another address where they accumulate all inputs.
But I seriously have never checked, if that is really true. Looking at the blockchain is not an easy way to get any information. You should just do that, as a last resort.
Yes,like you said its forward then back to my account again
hero member
Activity: 714
Merit: 500
July 06, 2015, 04:41:54 AM
I sent btc to yobit but its weird that my btc did not show up on account instead auto withdrawal to another btc address,i never encounter such thing before,does this blockchain problem or what i dont know,i only know i lost my bitcoin

that btc address to who belongs, it is your? because it sounds like your account there is hacked(your pc is infected maybe) or something, and this has nothing to do with the blockchain split
I have 2fact on my account,i dont know who belongs that btc withdrawal address,its happen automatically i eve check on my account history its not recorded for deposit nor withdrawal just like its happened on blockchain

2fact with email or phone? because it looks more and more like a steal and not a related issue of the blockchain split, that will not cause such a thing btw

but i'm curious can you post the address?
I am using google 2fact for android this is my btc address https://blockchain.info/address/14s5Fnf2twWsDaDvskkrBFqorrnSub7JSn
You can see there are a withdrawal at 18:48:30,i dont know why my bitcoin will sent to there


I just received my bitcoin on yobit,seem its delayed for hours now is fine
Try their support first, when you encounter a problem.
I think, most services you sent Bitcoin to, don't keep it in the address you sent it do, but forward it to another address where they accumulate all inputs.
But I seriously have never checked, if that is really true. Looking at the blockchain is not an easy way to get any information. You should just do that, as a last resort.
hero member
Activity: 659
Merit: 502
July 06, 2015, 04:32:24 AM
I sent btc to yobit but its weird that my btc did not show up on account instead auto withdrawal to another btc address,i never encounter such thing before,does this blockchain problem or what i dont know,i only know i lost my bitcoin

that btc address to who belongs, it is your? because it sounds like your account there is hacked(your pc is infected maybe) or something, and this has nothing to do with the blockchain split
I have 2fact on my account,i dont know who belongs that btc withdrawal address,its happen automatically i eve check on my account history its not recorded for deposit nor withdrawal just like its happened on blockchain

2fact with email or phone? because it looks more and more like a steal and not a related issue of the blockchain split, that will not cause such a thing btw

but i'm curious can you post the address?
I am using google 2fact for android this is my btc address https://blockchain.info/address/14s5Fnf2twWsDaDvskkrBFqorrnSub7JSn
You can see there are a withdrawal at 18:48:30,i dont know why my bitcoin will sent to there


I just received my bitcoin on yobit,seem its delayed for hours now is fine
hero member
Activity: 659
Merit: 502
July 06, 2015, 04:13:40 AM
I sent btc to yobit but its weird that my btc did not show up on account instead auto withdrawal to another btc address,i never encounter such thing before,does this blockchain problem or what i dont know,i only know i lost my bitcoin

that btc address to who belongs, it is your? because it sounds like your account there is hacked(your pc is infected maybe) or something, and this has nothing to do with the blockchain split
I have 2fact on my account,i dont know who belongs that btc withdrawal address,its happen automatically i eve check on my account history its not recorded for deposit nor withdrawal just like its happened on blockchain

2fact with email or phone? because it looks more and more like a steal and not a related issue of the blockchain split, that will not cause such a thing btw

but i'm curious can you post the address?
I am using google 2fact for android this is my btc address https://blockchain.info/address/14s5Fnf2twWsDaDvskkrBFqorrnSub7JSn
You can see there are a withdrawal at 18:48:30,i dont know why my bitcoin will sent to there

legendary
Activity: 3206
Merit: 1069
July 06, 2015, 03:51:32 AM
I sent btc to yobit but its weird that my btc did not show up on account instead auto withdrawal to another btc address,i never encounter such thing before,does this blockchain problem or what i dont know,i only know i lost my bitcoin

that btc address to who belongs, it is your? because it sounds like your account there is hacked(your pc is infected maybe) or something, and this has nothing to do with the blockchain split
I have 2fact on my account,i dont know who belongs that btc withdrawal address,its happen automatically i eve check on my account history its not recorded for deposit nor withdrawal just like its happened on blockchain

2fact with email or phone? because it looks more and more like a steal and not a related issue of the blockchain split, that will not cause such a thing btw

but i'm curious can you post the address?
hero member
Activity: 659
Merit: 502
July 06, 2015, 03:45:55 AM
I sent btc to yobit but its weird that my btc did not show up on account instead auto withdrawal to another btc address,i never encounter such thing before,does this blockchain problem or what i dont know,i only know i lost my bitcoin

that btc address to who belongs, it is your? because it sounds like your account there is hacked(your pc is infected maybe) or something, and this has nothing to do with the blockchain split
I have 2fact on my account,i dont know who belongs that btc withdrawal address,its happen automatically i eve check on my account history its not recorded for deposit nor withdrawal just like its happened on blockchain
legendary
Activity: 3206
Merit: 1069
July 06, 2015, 03:36:55 AM
I sent btc to yobit but its weird that my btc did not show up on account instead auto withdrawal to another btc address,i never encounter such thing before,does this blockchain problem or what i dont know,i only know i lost my bitcoin

that btc address to who belongs, it is your? because it sounds like your account there is hacked(your pc is infected maybe) or something, and this has nothing to do with the blockchain split
hero member
Activity: 659
Merit: 502
July 06, 2015, 03:30:20 AM
I sent btc to yobit but its weird that my btc did not show up on account instead auto withdrawal to another btc address,i never encounter such thing before,does this blockchain problem or what i dont know,i only know i lost my bitcoin
legendary
Activity: 1001
Merit: 1003
July 06, 2015, 01:32:42 AM
In this event, it is Blockchain.info that I blame the most!  They are the ones that created confusion within the community. They didn't do their job (again?).  They have an official wallet and they are (were?) the source of blockchain statistic that people came to trust. They should have validated blocks for their users - they didn't.  Didn't they also had a bug, a few months ago, on bitcoin addresses generation, related to entropy?  bc.i should have insured that the correct blockchain (v3) was displayed on their stat page - not the (v2) fork - they know better!

I agree with this partly. While bc.i has been providing an invaluable service, they seem to be having a lot of bugs lately.
However, its not their fault if people start conflating bitcoin with bc.i.

BTW, from what I gleaned from their error messages over the months, they are using (possibly modded) bitcoinj. In SPV mode this also would not validate BIP66.

On a different note, here's one proposed solution for SPV nodes that does not require us to wait for 30 confirmations. Please comment on its correctness.

Let us assume that an "invalid chain" cannot be more than 50 blocks.

Step 1. We boot our SPV node "now", several days after the July 4 fork.
Step 2. We receive the mth block, say b_m. We ensure that b_m is version 3 block.
Step 3. We need to ensure that at least 50 previous blocks before b_m were also correct. We download those blocks (not just the headers).
  That is blocks b_{m-50}, b_{m-49}... b_{m-1}. Then we ensure that all were version 3, have correct signatures, etc, and correctly validate the next block (via the prevBlockHash).
Step 4. We can start counting b_m as a block of a valid chain if above checks pass.
Step 5. For any further received blocks, we follow steps 2, 4, 5 (skipping steps 1 and 3), since we have already validated 50 blocks before the "boot" block. Hence we validating only with block b_{m-1} is sufficient.


hero member
Activity: 910
Merit: 1003
July 06, 2015, 01:06:51 AM
So, I dunno, you're probably right bitcoin's usefullness and popularity are also just "urban legends".  But I'll have to double check that tomorrow after I buy some stuff for my house on overstock.com using bitcoin.

You mean: after you sell some of your bitcoins for dollars through BitPay, and buy some stuff on overstock.com using those dollars.  Wink
legendary
Activity: 1456
Merit: 1078
I may write code in exchange for bitcoins.
July 06, 2015, 01:02:00 AM
so much for the security advantage of bitcoin
because of massive hashrate
compared to altcoins.....

another urban legend
to make bitcoin look superior busted

Well, maybe you're correct that a solid hashrate to defend against 51% attacks is just an urban legend.  Or maybe it also has to do with the idea that having a massive hashrate means massive interest in using a given coin.   I'll be sure to double-check that with the devs of the 1001 altcoins that have gone down the tubes over the past year for not having a single miner.

With respect to security, though, there's this:

did anyone LOSE BITCOINS as a result of this issue ?? That's what really matters ..
I don't think so besides BTCNuggets, F2Pool, and Antpool for 6 block rewards and wasted time and effort. There were no transactions in the fork except for the first invalid block from BTCNuggets which I believe got confirmed in the correct chain.

So, I dunno, you're probably right bitcoin's usefullness and popularity are also just "urban legends".  But I'll have to double check that tomorrow after I buy some stuff for my house on overstock.com using bitcoin.
full member
Activity: 223
Merit: 500
VIrtual credit card and virtual Bank account
July 06, 2015, 12:00:08 AM
i m using btc e so here ill be same as this post?
hero member
Activity: 910
Merit: 1003
July 05, 2015, 11:54:48 PM
Thanks @Cryddit for the replies! You write:

F2Pool and AntPool were not running correct software.   They had taken correct software and then deliberately modified it to make it wrong.  

Well, it is debatable whether it can be called "wrong".  It is more risky for the miner, and not what the bitcoin devs think that the miner should do, and not as helpful to the system as the others would think.  But miners have no obligation to behave in any particular way.  Each miner has the right to run whatever software he wants and output any blocks he wants.  The economic incentives are supposed to lead him, through self-interest, to behave in a way that is best for the system.  If the incentives are right but the miner doesn't act in his best interests, it is his problem, not anyone else's.  But if the incentives actually encourage a behavior that is bad for the system, it is a flaw of the protocol.

When they opted for "SPV mining", it was because they thought it would increase their revenue. In this case it didn't, but maybe it paid off overall.  Perhaps they overreacted to that incident that made them disable the verification code (when they lost ~6000 USD in an orphaned block because of a few seconds of delay); or perhaps "SPV mining" indeed saved them from several other incidents. 

Anyway, it should be their problem to figure that out and do what they think is best for them.  Their losses in that chain should not be of concert to anyone... except that there were many v2 nodes and clients out there that got confused because, by their criteria, the 'bad' chain was fully valid and was the longest chain. 

So, I insist that the devs deserve a fat slice of the blame: for not having a delay after the "95% majority" event, and because they choose to do a riskier manoeuver (allow v3 nodes and miners interact with v2 clients) for PR reasons (to keep clients unaware of the change, and let them run the v2 version even after it went into effect).
hero member
Activity: 910
Merit: 1003
July 05, 2015, 11:15:49 PM
Thanks @knightdk again for the reply. You write:

Well forcing everyone to upgrade defeats the purpose of a soft-fork. The idea behind a soft-fork is that the new rules are still valid under the old rules. This makes soft-forks much easier to carry out and they are backwards compatible. What you are suggesting would be to make every soft-fork a hard-fork, which requires that everyone must upgrade otherwise they will be left off of the network. This is much more difficulty to carry out and I think such hard-forks have and will have the delay, alerts sent out, and monitoring of the situation before and after the fork.

[ ... ]

As I said above, [ rejecting connections from outdated players ] makes it a hard-fork, which is much more dangerous than a soft-fork and much more difficult to do. Also, disconnecting and alienating all nodes running v2 would disconnect more than 1/6 of the network. According to getaddr.bitnodes.io, it appears that more than 1000 nodes out of 6000-ish nodes are running old software, be it Core 0.9.5 or earlier or other old software. This would lose a significant portion of the network, and probably break Bitcoin's credibility.

In understand that clients don't need to update if a soft fork only makes the rules for blocks more restrictive.  However, if it makes the rules for transactions more restrictive too, then the clients must update anyway, otherwise their transactions will be rejected (except by nodes and miners who are still running the old version, which may cause those transactions to be confirmed and then unconfirmed).  isn't that so? Isn't that the case of BIP66?

I believe that [ the "SPV mining hypothesis ] has been both confirmed and proved by F2Pool and AntPool.

Indeed, I see the quote in other posts.
hero member
Activity: 910
Merit: 1003
July 05, 2015, 11:06:23 PM
so much for the security advantage of bitcoin
because of massive hashrate
compared to altcoins.....

another urban legend
to make bitcoin look superior busted

No matter how big the army, it cannot defend the country from an internal war.
member
Activity: 105
Merit: 10
July 05, 2015, 10:31:38 PM
The problem is solved now?
staff
Activity: 3374
Merit: 6530
Just writing some code
July 05, 2015, 10:05:23 PM
So they did not want to verify the blocks with 1MB because of the size and now 8MB blocks come. Roll Eyes At least they have a hard lesson that its risky to not verify. I mean they lost quite some, mining on the wrong fork. On top they are depending on users that might leave them now.

Can anyone explain why a miner wouldn't simply verify the last block in parallel with their mining computations?
Let their ASICS hash while another machine double checks the last block.  What's wrong with that?

This is what I'm wondering too. The client probably isn't optimised for mining, but surely with custom software it would be possible to save state when a block is received from a peer, then immediately begin work on the new block. At the same time, verify the block that has just been received; if it turns out to be invalid, restore state and continue work on the "old" block.

This way you still get the speed advantage, but with the added safety of consistency checks.
It appears that F2Pool did, but had it disabled when the fork happened due to a bug from losing an orphan race a few months ago. It seems that they implemented a fix for that bug, but the code is not refined yet.

Source:
First, we are not a pure SPV mining operation. We only do that within seconds after a new block is found on the network. We did have a safe guard in the beginning which falls back to the verified block template if after one or two minutes the local bitcoind still not able to catch up with the udp notification. But the safe guard was disabled due to bug when we lost an orphan race a few months ago. We have already implemented a quick fix. It should be ok now. And we will further refine the code in the next few days.
legendary
Activity: 2268
Merit: 1092
July 05, 2015, 09:59:52 PM
So they did not want to verify the blocks with 1MB because of the size and now 8MB blocks come. Roll Eyes At least they have a hard lesson that its risky to not verify. I mean they lost quite some, mining on the wrong fork. On top they are depending on users that might leave them now.

Can anyone explain why a miner wouldn't simply verify the last block in parallel with their mining computations?
Let their ASICS hash while another machine double checks the last block.  What's wrong with that?

This is what I'm wondering too. The client probably isn't optimised for mining, but surely with custom software it would be possible to save state when a block is received from a peer, then immediately begin work on the new block. At the same time, verify the block that has just been received; if it turns out to be invalid, restore state and continue work on the "old" block.

This way you still get the speed advantage, but with the added safety of consistency checks.
legendary
Activity: 924
Merit: 1129
July 05, 2015, 09:11:55 PM
did anyone LOSE BITCOINS as a result of this issue ?? That's what really matters ..
I don't think so besides BTCNuggets, F2Pool, and Antpool for 6 block rewards and wasted time and effort. There were no transactions in the fork except for the first invalid block from BTCNuggets which I believe got confirmed in the correct chain.

To clarify: All the transactions in the BTCNuggets block, EXCEPT for the coinbase, which was an invalid transaction, were later included and confirmed in the valid chain.  The other blocks in this fork did not contain any valid transactions; only their coinbases, which were invalid.
Pages:
Jump to: