Topic: Blockchain.info - Bitcoin Block explorer & Currency Statistics - page 150. (Read 482400 times)
February 25, 2012, 02:15:17 PM
I'm able to log into my wallet now, but it shows 0.00 BTC. I had some 8 or so. Will I get them back or are they lost forever?
February 25, 2012, 01:42:57 PM
Wipe it, start clean, and don't worry about it. You're providing a voluntary service, not a paid one, so no one has the right to complain, and a clean, perfectly working system is better than a messy patched up one.
February 25, 2012, 09:19:28 AM
I know the feeling 
I support you in either way, you're doing a great job.
I support you in either way, you're doing a great job. 
February 25, 2012, 08:36:24 AM
Yesterday there was a problem with the database, I thought I had fixed it by importing a backup from a few days ago. But it looks like the script indexes are out of sync with the transaction indexes. I'm not sure what to do, I think the only option is to reimport the entire blockchain - but then all previous orphaned block data and ip address data will be lost.
I'm so tired of this, I'm supposed to be taking a break from bitcoin development for a bit.
I'm so tired of this, I'm supposed to be taking a break from bitcoin development for a bit.
February 25, 2012, 08:01:01 AM
The entire blockchain is messed up on the site, if you go look at individual blocks, the coinbase is wrong, along with the inputs and transactions.
The hashes are right... something is crosslinked somewhere that shouldn't be.
The hashes are right... something is crosslinked somewhere that shouldn't be.
Could this be related:
This is NOT our block: https://blockchain.info/block-height/168357
We're using poolserverj with workmaker, so all our generated inputs go to the same address, and it's the address shown on:
http://blockexplorer.com/block/00000000000001d440e68701c7e82de8b095741bdb76936b07598a8a9d0a5c29
https://blockchain.info/blocks/Bitcoins.lc isn't even our URL afaik.
https://blockchain.info/blocks/Bitlc.net shows the correct blocks, but what and where does Bitcoins.lc comes from?
Whats going on? Is it possible to delete the bitcoins.lc-tag from that block, so our users don't get confused?
Note:
All our blocks contains "BitLC /P2SH/" in the coinbase, just fyi.
February 24, 2012, 09:57:26 PM
The entire blockchain is messed up on the site, if you go look at individual blocks, the coinbase is wrong, along with the inputs and transactions.
The hashes are right... something is crosslinked somewhere that shouldn't be.
The hashes are right... something is crosslinked somewhere that shouldn't be.
February 24, 2012, 09:00:23 PM
Anyone else seeing a spike on the unknown % making up the hash rate? looking at 53% atm with 67 blocks solved by 0.0.0.0 , is this just a default IP the site sets if it can't get one, an error, plain luck or something else?
February 24, 2012, 08:40:28 PM
The wallet just doesn't seem to work anymore. 
February 24, 2012, 11:14:24 AM
Well get off it and fix it! Jeez... everyone knows sitting on a computer usually causes it to crash.
February 24, 2012, 08:22:11 AM
I'm on it.
February 24, 2012, 08:17:37 AM
Site is completely down now...
February 23, 2012, 01:13:42 PM
For context:
Would that mean that there were actual double spend transactions and possible 51% attacks, or the thieves got really lucky because some of their transactions were part of a chain fork split?
It may. However, controlling 51% of the network only means that you can outrun the honest miners on a consistent basis. An attacker could've been constantly moving funds to and from MyBitcoin, hoping for a lucky break where he got lucky and scored a couple of fast rounds, and the network slower ones.Or does that mean there is a higher probability that they lied?
This is what I think happened. There is no way they kept just 49% of their funds in cold storage. Even if you only moved funds to and from cold storage once per day, there probably still wasn't need for 51% of their funds to be active and ready to go. 
February 23, 2012, 01:11:50 PM
Because they include 0 confirmation transactions and in some rare circumstances unconfirmed double spends.
Uhm, where there any double-spend "attacks" already? Ever?
I guess it would only be a "two concurrent transactions are broadcasted", and wouldnt have anything to do with the blockchain at all?
Ente
If we are to believe Mybitcoin.com, that's how they lost half their money, with thieves stealing small amounts using unconfirmed transactions. If we are to believe Mybitcoin.com.
Fair enough; but the only time that loses you money is if those single-confirm transactions are subsequently undone because of a double spend on a separate chain. Surely that large quantity of double spends to steal so much from MyBitcoin would show up?
February 23, 2012, 01:01:38 PM
Because they include 0 confirmation transactions and in some rare circumstances unconfirmed double spends.
Uhm, where there any double-spend "attacks" already? Ever?
I guess it would only be a "two concurrent transactions are broadcasted", and wouldnt have anything to do with the blockchain at all?
Ente
If we are to believe Mybitcoin.com, that's how they lost half their money, with thieves stealing small amounts using unconfirmed transactions. If we are to believe Mybitcoin.com.
Would that mean that there were actual double spend transactions and possible 51% attacks, or the thieves got really lucky because some of their transactions were part of a chain fork split?
Or does that mean there is a higher probability that they lied? As I understand it, even with a single confirm, the chances of a double spend thanks to a block that later gets rejected, and doing this continuously, are near impossible.
February 23, 2012, 12:57:49 PM
Because they include 0 confirmation transactions and in some rare circumstances unconfirmed double spends.
Uhm, where there any double-spend "attacks" already? Ever?
I guess it would only be a "two concurrent transactions are broadcasted", and wouldnt have anything to do with the blockchain at all?
Ente
If we are to believe Mybitcoin.com, that's how they lost half their money, with thieves stealing small amounts using unconfirmed transactions. If we are to believe Mybitcoin.com.
February 23, 2012, 12:37:09 PM
Because they include 0 confirmation transactions and in some rare circumstances unconfirmed double spends.
Uhm, where there any double-spend "attacks" already? Ever?
I guess it would only be a "two concurrent transactions are broadcasted", and wouldnt have anything to do with the blockchain at all?
Ente
If we are to believe Mybitcoin.com, that's how they lost half their money, with thieves stealing small amounts using unconfirmed transactions. If we are to believe Mybitcoin.com.
February 23, 2012, 07:32:35 AM
Because they include 0 confirmation transactions and in some rare circumstances unconfirmed double spends.
Uhm, where there any double-spend "attacks" already? Ever?
I guess it would only be a "two concurrent transactions are broadcasted", and wouldnt have anything to do with the blockchain at all?
Ente
February 23, 2012, 06:21:20 AM
Wallet seems to be having issues.
Apologies, should be ok now.
Out of curiosity, why shouldn't your address lookup APIs be used for payment processing?
Because they include 0 confirmation transactions and in some rare circumstances unconfirmed double spends.
February 22, 2012, 11:51:35 PM
Out of curiosity, why shouldn't your address lookup APIs be used for payment processing?
February 22, 2012, 09:43:55 PM
Mine as well, but I contacted their support team and they said that some changes were being made to the site and that it should be working properly again soon.
However I did almost have a panic attack when I checked my wallet and it showed my balance back at 0 and no transactions recorded aaaand I still can't send anything.
However I did almost have a panic attack when I checked my wallet and it showed my balance back at 0 and no transactions recorded aaaand I still can't send anything.
Jump to: