Electrum 1.8.1 Stuck on Block 251526

Tachikoma

hero member

Activity: 938

Merit: 1000

Try a different server and make sure you included enough fees.

gominoa

newbie

Activity: 17

Merit: 0

This appears to be happening again. I cant send. TX rejected code -22.

ksteve96

full member

Activity: 624

Merit: 125

alcedoplatform.com

Quote from: tnkflx on August 15, 2013, 03:30:22 AM

Quote from: ksteve96 on August 14, 2013, 12:54:39 PM

I was wondering what was going on. I'm connected to electrum.be now, but still not seeing a sent transaction in the blockchain, even unconfirmed. Transaction shows in the electrum client as pending since about an hour ago. I'm at 252,151 blocks right now.

Do you have the transactiond id?

I went to bed and when I looked again that one finally was OK. But I just sent 1 BTC somewhere else 20 minutes ago and it's not showing up in the chain yet. A few other transactions were pretty slow yesterday too, but I can't get a fix on if it was electrum or the sender, or both.

As for todays transaction, I'll PM you the ID.

Well, as I was writing that, there were 2 confirmations I opened and closed the client during that time. Now I'm just wondering about the delays in general, previously, transactions would generally show up in the blockchain almost immediately, although unconfirmed. Been slower since the stuck block it seems. I'll keep monitoring it.

tnkflx

sr. member

Activity: 349

Merit: 250

Quote from: ksteve96 on August 14, 2013, 12:54:39 PM

I was wondering what was going on. I'm connected to electrum.be now, but still not seeing a sent transaction in the blockchain, even unconfirmed. Transaction shows in the electrum client as pending since about an hour ago. I'm at 252,151 blocks right now.

Do you have the transactiond id?

ksteve96

full member

Activity: 624

Merit: 125

alcedoplatform.com

I was wondering what was going on. I'm connected to electrum.be now, but still not seeing a sent transaction in the blockchain, even unconfirmed. Transaction shows in the electrum client as pending since about an hour ago. I'm at 252,151 blocks right now.

sovereignlife

newbie

Activity: 2

Merit: 0

That was a really helpful post as I experienced this problem today when attempting to send out some BTC. The strange thing was on my first attempt the funds actually arrived, but didn't show up on my transaction history - and other attempts to send failed, as per above comments. Changing the server fixed the problem - so thanks!

Quote from: EagleTM on August 11, 2013, 05:01:25 PM

Servers electrum.be and electrum.no-ip.org are fixed and up to date.

Thanks to DigitalHermit for the fix, which is pushed to electrum-server on github (https://github.com/spesmilo/electrum-server/). We're urging all server operators to apply the fix. If you want to make sure your server database has a correct block 251526 indexed please re-index from a backup (i.e. from the foundry linked above). We're still researching how unpatched servers handled 251526...

EagleTM

newbie

Activity: 46

Merit: 0

There appears to be a bug (regression) with servers not connected to IRC and Electrum > 1.7 . The client only shows the one server you're connected to, which is a problem if this is a server still stuck on 251526. It should show a list of built in servers.

To resolve this you manually have to enter one of the servers like:

electrum.be SSL 50002
electrum.no-ip.org SSL 50002
electrum.pdmc.net SSL 50002

dashingriddler

legendary

Activity: 1258

Merit: 1001

My Abe got struck at 251526. Updating of Abe from github resolved the issue and the scanning went ahead

EagleTM

newbie

Activity: 46

Merit: 0

Quote from: gmaxwell on August 12, 2013, 05:50:06 AM

Transaction ID: 77822fd6663c665104119cb7635352756dfc50da76a92d417ec1a12c518fad69 contains the patch for the second bug:

Thx for posting this!
How is "second bug" meant? How do you read the patch? It's still the same issue? I guess I'm missing something?

Quote

I guess this was code monkey-copied from abe? I suppose someone should go fix that too.

abe was fairly quick:

commit 2b721e1df441396d04cea8b34ebe7b77488ddf52
Author: John Tobey
Date: Mon Aug 12 13:44:39 2013 -0400

Merge bitcointools upstream changes and update callers.

If I read the timestamp right that's less than 2 hours after the fix got included in the blockchain. That's rather quick and the change fixes other things with it. Too quick, but maybe he got a PM around the time it was accepted in the mempool at Eligius

?

Peter Todd

legendary

Activity: 1120

Merit: 1164

Quote from: Mahn on August 12, 2013, 03:11:38 PM

So, is this him? Anyone can write something with a header saying from "From: Satoshi Nakamoto <[email protected]>", but I can't picture someone searching through the entire commits history of bitcoin to find the relevant commit that matches what he's talking about (f1e1fb4bdef878c8fc1564fa418d44e7541a7e83, which does indeed exist and it is a commit by Satoshi)

Note that I mentioned double-byte opcodes a few weeks ago on the forums; there's lots of people who know about this stuff and could have made that transaction.

I should also point out that the transaction appears to not only include a patch to fix Electrum, but at the same time also triggers the bug it patches. I think what happens is that the OP_INVALIDOPCODE triggers the broken double-wide code to advance a byte, ORing that byte with OP_INVALIDOPCODE << 8. Unfortunately that character is a PUSHDATA, which means that Electrum now processes the data as though it were opcodes. The next byte is 0x4e, or OP_PUSHDATA4, followed by the length of the data to be pushed, 0xffffffff=2^32 bytes. Of course there aren't 4GiB of data in the script, so it fails and Electrum gets stuck.

I think the OP_IF/OP_ENDIF was meant so that the transaction could be spent, but whomever did so forgot that PUSHDATA's > 520 bytes make a transaction invalid. Thus unless we change that limit - a hard-fork - the 15mBTC will be unspendable forever. (invalid opcodes are legal in an un-executed IF/ELSE/ENDIF branch, but oversized pushdata's are not)

I rather doubt that Satoshi would have made that mistake. Wink

Quote from: kayrice on August 12, 2013, 03:22:16 PM

I think he did include a git signature:

a3a61fef43309b9fb23225df7910b03afc5465b9

That's just a reference to the previous commit ID the patch is meant to apply too. If you save that patch to a file you can apply it with git am patch.diff, it was probably created with git format-patch from the looks of it.

kayrice

member

Activity: 104

Merit: 11

I think he did include a git signature:

a3a61fef43309b9fb23225df7910b03afc5465b9

Mahn

full member

Activity: 140

Merit: 100

Quote from: gmaxwell on August 12, 2013, 05:50:06 AM

Transaction ID: 77822fd6663c665104119cb7635352756dfc50da76a92d417ec1a12c518fad69 contains the patch for the second bug:

Code:

From a3a61fef43309b9fb23225df7910b03afc5465b9 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Satoshi Nakamoto 
Date: Mon, 12 Aug 2013 02:28:02 -0200
Subject: [PATCH] Remove (SINGLE|DOUBLE)BYTE

I removed this from Bitcoin in f1e1fb4bdef878c8fc1564fa418d44e7541a7e83
in Sept 7 2010, almost three years ago. Be warned that I have not
actually tested this patch.
---
 backends/bitcoind/deserialize.py |    8 +-------
 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 7 deletions(-)

diff --git a/backends/bitcoind/deserialize.py b/backends/bitcoind/deserialize.py
index 6620583..89b9b1b 100644
--- a/backends/bitcoind/deserialize.py
+++ b/backends/bitcoind/deserialize.py
@@ -280,10 +280,8 @@ opcodes = Enumeration("Opcodes", [
     "OP_WITHIN", "OP_RIPEMD160", "OP_SHA1", "OP_SHA256", "OP_HASH160",
     "OP_HASH256", "OP_CODESEPARATOR", "OP_CHECKSIG", "OP_CHECKSIGVERIFY", "OP_CHECKMULTISIG",
     "OP_CHECKMULTISIGVERIFY",
-    ("OP_SINGLEBYTE_END", 0xF0),
-    ("OP_DOUBLEBYTE_BEGIN", 0xF000),
     "OP_PUBKEY", "OP_PUBKEYHASH",
-    ("OP_INVALIDOPCODE", 0xFFFF),
+    ("OP_INVALIDOPCODE", 0xFF),
 ])
 
 
@@ -293,10 +291,6 @@ def script_GetOp(bytes):
         vch = None
         opcode = ord(bytes[i])
         i += 1
-        if opcode >= opcodes.OP_SINGLEBYTE_END and i < len(bytes):
-            opcode <<= 8
-            opcode |= ord(bytes[i])
-            i += 1
 
         if opcode <= opcodes.OP_PUSHDATA4:
             nSize = opcode
-- 
1.7.9.4

I guess this was code monkey-copied from abe? I suppose someone should go fix that too.

So, is this him? Anyone can write something with a header saying from "From: Satoshi Nakamoto <[email protected]>", but I can't picture someone searching through the entire commits history of bitcoin to find the relevant commit that matches what he's talking about (f1e1fb4bdef878c8fc1564fa418d44e7541a7e83, which does indeed exist and it is a commit by Satoshi). Satoshi, if you are reading this, add your digital signature next time, even if you are trying to be extra cautious it can't possibly do much harm.

cryptasm

legendary

Activity: 997

Merit: 1002

Gamdom.com

Can't send anything from my electrum wallet, tried using electrum.be and electrum.no-ip.org, no joy. Keep seeing that error -22 message. Any ideas what I can do? thanks

EDIT: All sorted now Grin

tigereye

member

Activity: 79

Merit: 10

I can write an email with "From: Satoshi Nakamoto <[email protected]>" in the header too, and embed it in the blockchain.

What would you like your letter from Satoshi to say?

dserrano5

legendary

Activity: 1974

Merit: 1030

What's this?

Quote from: gmaxwell on August 12, 2013, 05:50:06 AM

Code:

From a3a61fef43309b9fb23225df7910b03afc5465b9 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Satoshi Nakamoto 
Date: Mon, 12 Aug 2013 02:28:02 -0200
Subject: [PATCH] Remove (SINGLE|DOUBLE)BYTE

I removed this from Bitcoin in f1e1fb4bdef878c8fc1564fa418d44e7541a7e83
in Sept 7 2010, almost three years ago. Be warned that I have not
actually tested this patch.

More specifically:

Code:

From: Satoshi Nakamoto 
Date: Mon, 12 Aug 2013 02:28:02 -0200

It's been several hours since this was posted and I don't see the entire net screaming "Satoshi is alive!!!" all around, so I guess I must be the only one drawing the wrong conclusion from those two lines. Someone willing to state that obvious thing that I fail to see?

ThomasV

legendary

Activity: 1896

Merit: 1353

Quote from: EagleTM on August 11, 2013, 05:01:25 PM

Servers electrum.be and electrum.no-ip.org are fixed and up to date.

Thanks to DigitalHermit for the fix, which is pushed to electrum-server on github (https://github.com/spesmilo/electrum-server/). We're urging all server operators to apply the fix. If you want to make sure your server database has a correct block 251526 indexed please re-index from a backup (i.e. from the foundry linked above). We're still researching how unpatched servers handled 251526...

thank you guys for the quick fix!

Aleksei Richards

newbie

Activity: 38

Merit: 0

You can also use your electrum passphrase at carbon wallet. http://carbonwallet.com/

gmaxwell

staff

Activity: 4284

Merit: 8808

Transaction ID: 77822fd6663c665104119cb7635352756dfc50da76a92d417ec1a12c518fad69 contains the patch for the second bug:

Code:

From a3a61fef43309b9fb23225df7910b03afc5465b9 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Satoshi Nakamoto
Date: Mon, 12 Aug 2013 02:28:02 -0200
Subject: [PATCH] Remove (SINGLE|DOUBLE)BYTE

I removed this from Bitcoin in f1e1fb4bdef878c8fc1564fa418d44e7541a7e83
in Sept 7 2010, almost three years ago. Be warned that I have not
actually tested this patch.
---
backends/bitcoind/deserialize.py | 8 +-------
1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 7 deletions(-)

diff --git a/backends/bitcoind/deserialize.py b/backends/bitcoind/deserialize.py
index 6620583..89b9b1b 100644
--- a/backends/bitcoind/deserialize.py
+++ b/backends/bitcoind/deserialize.py
@@ -280,10 +280,8 @@ opcodes = Enumeration("Opcodes", [
   "OP_WITHIN", "OP_RIPEMD160", "OP_SHA1", "OP_SHA256", "OP_HASH160",
   "OP_HASH256", "OP_CODESEPARATOR", "OP_CHECKSIG", "OP_CHECKSIGVERIFY", "OP_CHECKMULTISIG",
   "OP_CHECKMULTISIGVERIFY",
- ("OP_SINGLEBYTE_END", 0xF0),
- ("OP_DOUBLEBYTE_BEGIN", 0xF000),
   "OP_PUBKEY", "OP_PUBKEYHASH",
- ("OP_INVALIDOPCODE", 0xFFFF),
+ ("OP_INVALIDOPCODE", 0xFF),
])

@@ -293,10 +291,6 @@ def script_GetOp(bytes):
   vch = None
   opcode = ord(bytes[i])
   i += 1
- if opcode >= opcodes.OP_SINGLEBYTE_END and i < len(bytes):
- opcode <<= 8
- opcode |= ord(bytes[i])
- i += 1

   if opcode <= opcodes.OP_PUSHDATA4:
   nSize = opcode
--
1.7.9.4

I guess this was code monkey-copied from abe? I suppose someone should go fix that too.

yxt

legendary

Activity: 3528

Merit: 1116

Thanks for the fast solution

Jaxkr

sr. member

Activity: 420

Merit: 250

Quote from: stepkrav on August 11, 2013, 07:19:18 PM

electrum.stepkrav.pw up n running.

Thanks. Switched there, and everything's working!

Topic: Electrum 1.8.1 Stuck on Block 251526 (Read 10504 times)