Topic: Blockchain.info - Bitcoin Block explorer & Currency Statistics - page 68. (Read 482537 times)

Does that mean everyone will need to update their callback code again to match the new IP address?

Good move.

With the browser extension it would be impossible for them to alter the javascript. In a couple of days the site will be moving off cloudflare instead using several nginx proxies (http://blog.unixy.net/2010/08/the-penultimate-guide-to-stopping-a-ddos-attack-a-new-approach/).


Looking at the addresses in your wallet there are many double spends which has caused the blockchain interface to get confused somewhat. I assume you are are using another client also?

The balance of 138bqSSnWz23fNHe6qUHRz8LfieqVmvkYr is 1.309424 BTC, the other addresses are zero.

There are several transactions that were confirmed in the major fork a few days ago but have not confirmed in the new chain for some reason. Normally these transactions would be pruned however since they are already included in an orphaned block they cannot be removed, this is unusual and I'm not sure why they are not confirming. I have rebroadcasted them several times but it doesn't seem to have helped, the best course of action would be to double spend them with another client.

The following page shows which double spends in your wallet are unspendable:

http://blockchain.info/unspent?active=12U63dueaNH1ANWLe2XWF6uUqNnstyNi6c%7C138bqSSnWz23fNHe6qUHRz8LfieqVmvkYr%7C149PQjaoTXLBkcX5wczcs947zcUbgTUdxp&format=html


There is 0.20027549 BTC available in address 17Wt5vmidhegUGXFiyiuQYc21QPb8rMYnC. Is there another address?

Please try clearing your cache and reloading the page.


The address has received an output but the result of the transaction was < 0. This will happen when change is returned to the same address. I would just ignore any values < 0.


Apologies this was a bug I introduced last night, and should have been fixed this morning.


Yes this is correct.

-----------

The default display filter for address pages has been changed to "filter unspendable" which means double spends and transactions not confirmed in the main chain (apart from recent unconfirmed transactions) will be hidden. This means balances displayed on /address will be much more accurate of representation of the of the balance of an address even if it has received double spends or has received payments from an orphaned block.

If we use btctrada's address as an example:

"Filter Unspendable" shows a balance of 1.309424 BTC - http://blockchain.info/address/138bqSSnWz23fNHe6qUHRz8LfieqVmvkYr

Viewing all transactions (Old default) shows a balance of 194.73778528  BTC - http://blockchain.info/address/138bqSSnWz23fNHe6qUHRz8LfieqVmvkYr?filter=0

Filtering by confirmed only shows a balance 0 BTC - http://blockchain.info/address/138bqSSnWz23fNHe6qUHRz8LfieqVmvkYr?filter=5

Wallet balances have always defaulted to "Filter Unspendable" however a bug has been fixed preventing the children of unspendable transaction being properly filtered (occurred when there was a chain of double spends).

Database improvements

Previously when a wallet reached about 10k transactions fetching the balance and creating transaction would become a little slow. This has now been fixed and the speed of all the major API calls has been improved. This transactions should be very quick to construct regardless of the size of the wallet.
 

Huh. I now have my firstbits and GPG fingerprint in my description on the left, but my OTC id has everything.

He also scrapped bitcoin-otc, not only the forum.

I think Puik must have scrapped the forum signatures for bitcoin addresses and added the text to the tags. I've seen other addresses like that on blockchain.info.

Yep, it got automatically added to my address. Not sure about the limits though.

I guess it's related to http://blockchain.info/tags - but I don't see how he got all that information there, when there seems to be a 30 character limit.

Oi, how'd you get that bar across the top?

Another example of buggy amounts would be my address here:

http://blockexplorer.com/address/1NB1KFnFqnP3WSDZQrWV3pfmph5fWRyadz
http://blockchain.info/address/1NB1KFnFqnP3WSDZQrWV3pfmph5fWRyadz

There's actually only 101.57898746 in it, although Blockchain.info says I have 102.33498746 BTC in it.

My chain says it has 4.1858971 BTC. I must be doing something wrong...
Just ignore me

Hmm.. I guess it's better to hold off until this is fixed. There' something wrong with my balances too. 

That's exactly my thoughts. It's not urgent and I know his backlog is long enough already. But still those bugs lately worry me a bit. Should I base my site's payment system on blockchain.info? Would that help piuk or should I back off for a while (meaning I'll also have to switch to some other payment processor) till bugs are becoming more rare?

It would be prudent to PM piuk if there's anything urgent. The poor guy's overworked and understaffed.

This is all very worrying.  It's bad enough that there are so many issues with the service.  The lack of official responses makes it worse.

Yeap. But it just got fixed. I again see the correct balance. What was that?

EDIT: Although this problem might not be limited to this one address. I try to pay using the Android app and it gives me an error: "Error Response an output is already spent. (also got fixed now)

https://blockexplorer.com/address/1Pxbqi5UnkdiVp7VNq1Ej7n4FtMrKKEvvY
Blockexplorer.com disagrees with blockchain.info.
Those 60 BTC were already spent almost 2 years ago.

Also something unrelated: I'm pretty sure that this address doesn't have a 60BTC balance. https://blockchain.info/address/1Pxbqi5UnkdiVp7VNq1Ej7n4FtMrKKEvvY

My wallet suddenly shows an extra 60BTC because of this address even though that address shows no recent transactions.

I got this HTTP callback: (sensitive parameters removed)

But I've set up my wallet to send notifications for received transactions only. What's that -50001 value? Why is it negative? It looks like it notified me about an outgoing transaction.

Note: ZenDesk rarely responds within 48 hours but if you message Piuk its most likely caused by playing Sdice.