they aren't mining blocks, they just weren't verifying any of the blocks that they were relaying, hence blockchain.info reporting them relaying the block first
all those ^^ IPs I listed, I had their entire subnets banned on my 5.9.24.81 node
nobody else seemed to tho ,
Topic: Peer 82.130.xx.xx connected to me 3 times, sending constant pings? (Read 3266 times)
September 29, 2012, 10:29:54 AM
September 28, 2012, 01:19:18 PM
Their public http server has a file named BitThief.exe
Wallet stealer?I believe BitThief was shown to be non-bitcoin related.
September 28, 2012, 01:16:34 PM
Ah ok, Snoopy:0.1 
this really seems to be something custom, also note that most of them (the Snoopy:0.1) have 0 blocks.
There's a download on http://82.130.102.160/ called snoopy.tar.bz2. Appears to be a Python program bundled into a binary. Hmmmm. this really seems to be something custom, also note that most of them (the Snoopy:0.1) have 0 blocks.
legendary
Activity: 1862
Merit: 1011
Reverse engineer from time to time
September 28, 2012, 12:59:24 PM
Their public http server has a file named BitThief.exe
Wallet stealer? 
September 28, 2012, 12:31:59 PM
actually, this is really annoying now, since there are 9 of them
206.12.16.155
129.74.74.20
128.6.192.156
129.130.252.140
82.130.102.160 (on about 30 or 40 different ports)
137.99.11.86
130.253.21.123
147.102.3.117
129.130.252.141
whenever one connects, i get flooded with the ping fail
206.12.16.155
129.74.74.20
128.6.192.156
129.130.252.140
82.130.102.160 (on about 30 or 40 different ports)
137.99.11.86
130.253.21.123
147.102.3.117
129.130.252.141
whenever one connects, i get flooded with the ping fail
http://bgp.he.net/ip/206.12.16.155 -->BCnet
http://bgp.he.net/ip/129.74.74.20 -->University of Notre Dame
http://bgp.he.net/ip/128.6.192.156 -->Rutgers University
http://bgp.he.net/ip/129.130.252.140 -->Kansas State University
http://bgp.he.net/ip/82.130.102.160 -->Swiss Federal Institute of Technology Zurich
http://bgp.he.net/ip/137.99.11.86 -->University of Connecticut
http://bgp.he.net/ip/130.253.21.123 -->University of Denver
http://bgp.he.net/ip/147.102.3.117 -->National Technical University of Athens
http://bgp.he.net/ip/129.130.252.141 -->Kansas State University
Is this a coordinated effort, since they are all doing the same thing?
September 28, 2012, 12:28:50 PM
http://bgp.he.net/ip/82.130.102.160
ETH Zürich have been experimenting with fast double spend attacks, and is currently (as of today) bringing massive mining power to bear on the main network.
Their public http server has a file named BitThief.exe on it, and they're spamming ping messages. (Denial of Service?) Did i miss anything?
Blockchain.info's block source identification is frequently wrong. Try not to panic over it.ETH Zürich have been experimenting with fast double spend attacks, and is currently (as of today) bringing massive mining power to bear on the main network.
Their public http server has a file named BitThief.exe on it, and they're spamming ping messages. (Denial of Service?) Did i miss anything?
September 28, 2012, 11:44:23 AM
actually, this is really annoying now, since there are 9 of them
206.12.16.155
129.74.74.20
128.6.192.156
129.130.252.140
82.130.102.160 (on about 30 or 40 different ports)
137.99.11.86
130.253.21.123
147.102.3.117
129.130.252.141
whenever one connects, i get flooded with the ping fail
206.12.16.155
129.74.74.20
128.6.192.156
129.130.252.140
82.130.102.160 (on about 30 or 40 different ports)
137.99.11.86
130.253.21.123
147.102.3.117
129.130.252.141
whenever one connects, i get flooded with the ping fail
http://bgp.he.net/ip/206.12.16.155 -->BCnet
http://bgp.he.net/ip/129.74.74.20 -->University of Notre Dame
http://bgp.he.net/ip/128.6.192.156 -->Rutgers University
http://bgp.he.net/ip/129.130.252.140 -->Kansas State University
http://bgp.he.net/ip/82.130.102.160 -->Swiss Federal Institute of Technology Zurich
http://bgp.he.net/ip/137.99.11.86 -->University of Connecticut
http://bgp.he.net/ip/130.253.21.123 -->University of Denver
http://bgp.he.net/ip/147.102.3.117 -->National Technical University of Athens
http://bgp.he.net/ip/129.130.252.141 -->Kansas State University
September 28, 2012, 10:19:34 AM
http://bgp.he.net/ip/82.130.102.160
ETH Zürich have been experimenting with fast double spend attacks, and is currently (as of today) bringing massive mining power to bear on the main network.
Their public http server has a file named BitThief.exe on it, and they're spamming ping messages. (Denial of Service?) Did i miss anything?
ETH Zürich have been experimenting with fast double spend attacks, and is currently (as of today) bringing massive mining power to bear on the main network.
Their public http server has a file named BitThief.exe on it, and they're spamming ping messages. (Denial of Service?) Did i miss anything?
September 28, 2012, 10:14:27 AM
September 26, 2012, 06:20:04 PM
haha, reorganize my ass, think the source code needs some modification
wtf is btcguild doing with a block that is 2m late? also running some shit that doesnt proof check blocks?
09/26/12 23:08:57 received block 000000000000037261e3 from
09/26/12 23:08:57 SetBestChain: new best=000000000000037261e3 height=200660 work=501601906478243162700 date=09/26/12 23:08:48
09/26/12 23:08:57 ProcessBlock: ACCEPTED
09/26/12 23:08:57 getblocks -1 to 00000000000000000000 limit 500 from
09/26/12 23:08:57 getblocks -1 to 00000000000000000000 limit 500 from
09/26/12 23:08:57 getblocks -1 to 00000000000000000000 limit 500 from
09/26/12 23:08:57 getblocks -1 to 00000000000000000000 limit 500 from
09/26/12 23:08:57 getblocks -1 to 00000000000000000000 limit 500 from
09/26/12 23:08:57 getblocks -1 to 00000000000000000000 limit 500 from
09/26/12 23:08:57 getblocks -1 to 00000000000000000000 limit 500 from
09/26/12 23:08:57 getblocks -1 to 00000000000000000000 limit 500 from
09/26/12 23:08:57 getblocks -1 to 00000000000000000000 limit 500 from
09/26/12 23:08:57 getblocks -1 to 00000000000000000000 limit 500 from
09/26/12 23:08:57 getblocks -1 to 00000000000000000000 limit 500 from
09/26/12 23:08:57 getblocks -1 to 00000000000000000000 limit 500 from
09/26/12 23:08:57 getblocks -1 to 00000000000000000000 limit 500 from
09/26/12 23:08:57 getblocks -1 to 00000000000000000000 limit 500 from
09/26/12 23:08:57 getblocks -1 to 00000000000000000000 limit 500 from
09/26/12 23:08:57 getblocks -1 to 00000000000000000000 limit 500 from
09/26/12 23:08:57 getblocks -1 to 00000000000000000000 limit 500 from
09/26/12 23:08:57 getblocks -1 to 00000000000000000000 limit 500 from
09/26/12 23:08:57 getblocks -1 to 00000000000000000000 limit 500 from
09/26/12 23:08:57 getblocks -1 to 00000000000000000000 limit 500 from
09/26/12 23:08:57 getblocks -1 to 00000000000000000000 limit 500 from
09/26/12 23:08:57 getblocks -1 to 00000000000000000000 limit 500 from
09/26/12 23:08:57 getblocks -1 to 00000000000000000000 limit 500 from
09/26/12 23:08:57 getblocks -1 to 00000000000000000000 limit 500 from
09/26/12 23:08:57 getblocks -1 to 00000000000000000000 limit 500 from
09/26/12 23:08:57 getblocks -1 to 00000000000000000000 limit 500 from
09/26/12 23:08:57 getblocks -1 to 00000000000000000000 limit 500 from
09/26/12 23:08:57 getblocks -1 to 00000000000000000000 limit 500 from
09/26/12 23:08:58 getblocks -1 to 00000000000000000000 limit 500 from
09/26/12 23:08:58 getblocks -1 to 00000000000000000000 limit 500 from
09/26/12 23:08:58 getblocks -1 to 00000000000000000000 limit 500 from
09/26/12 23:08:58 getblocks -1 to 00000000000000000000 limit 500 from
09/26/12 23:08:58 getblocks -1 to 00000000000000000000 limit 500 from
09/26/12 23:08:58 getblocks -1 to 00000000000000000000 limit 500 from
09/26/12 23:08:58 getblocks -1 to 00000000000000000000 limit 500 from
09/26/12 23:08:58 getblocks -1 to 00000000000000000000 limit 500 from
09/26/12 23:08:58 getblocks -1 to 00000000000000000000 limit 500 from
09/26/12 23:08:58 getblocks -1 to 00000000000000000000 limit 500 from
09/26/12 23:08:58 getblocks -1 to 00000000000000000000 limit 500 from
09/26/12 23:08:58 getblocks -1 to 00000000000000000000 limit 500 from
09/26/12 23:08:58 getblocks -1 to 00000000000000000000 limit 500 from
09/26/12 23:08:58 getblocks -1 to 00000000000000000000 limit 500 from
09/26/12 23:08:59 getblocks -1 to 00000000000000000000 limit 500 from
09/26/12 23:08:59 getblocks -1 to 00000000000000000000 limit 500 from
09/26/12 23:09:00 getblocks -1 to 00000000000000000000 limit 500 from
09/26/12 23:09:00 getblocks -1 to 00000000000000000000 limit 500 from
09/26/12 23:09:00 getblocks -1 to 00000000000000000000 limit 500 from
09/26/12 23:09:00 getblocks -1 to 00000000000000000000 limit 500 from
09/26/12 23:09:00 getblocks -1 to 00000000000000000000 limit 500 from
09/26/12 23:09:00 getblocks -1 to 00000000000000000000 limit 500 from
09/26/12 23:09:00 getblocks -1 to 00000000000000000000 limit 500 from
09/26/12 23:09:01 getblocks -1 to 00000000000000000000 limit 500 from
09/26/12 23:09:01 getblocks -1 to 00000000000000000000 limit 500 from
09/26/12 23:09:01 getblocks -1 to 00000000000000000000 limit 500 from
09/26/12 23:09:01 getblocks -1 to 00000000000000000000 limit 500 from
09/26/12 23:09:01 getblocks -1 to 00000000000000000000 limit 500 from
09/26/12 23:09:01 getblocks -1 to 00000000000000000000 limit 500 from
09/26/12 23:09:01 getblocks -1 to 00000000000000000000 limit 500 from
09/26/12 23:09:01 getblocks -1 to 00000000000000000000 limit 500 from
09/26/12 23:09:01 getblocks -1 to 00000000000000000000 limit 500 from
09/26/12 23:09:02 getblocks -1 to 00000000000000000000 limit 500 from
09/26/12 23:09:02 getblocks -1 to 00000000000000000000 limit 500 from
09/26/12 23:09:02 getblocks -1 to 00000000000000000000 limit 500 from
09/26/12 23:09:02 getblocks -1 to 00000000000000000000 limit 500 from
09/26/12 23:09:02 getblocks -1 to 00000000000000000000 limit 500 from
09/26/12 23:09:02 getblocks -1 to 00000000000000000000 limit 500 from
09/26/12 23:09:02 getblocks -1 to 00000000000000000000 limit 500 from
09/26/12 23:09:02 getblocks -1 to 00000000000000000000 limit 500 from
09/26/12 23:09:02 getblocks -1 to 00000000000000000000 limit 500 from
09/26/12 23:09:02 getblocks -1 to 00000000000000000000 limit 500 from
09/26/12 23:09:02 getblocks -1 to 00000000000000000000 limit 500 from
09/26/12 23:09:03 getblocks -1 to 00000000000000000000 limit 500 from
09/26/12 23:09:03 getblocks -1 to 00000000000000000000 limit 500 from
09/26/12 23:09:03 getblocks -1 to 00000000000000000000 limit 500 from
09/26/12 23:09:03 getblocks -1 to 00000000000000000000 limit 500 from
09/26/12 23:09:03 getblocks -1 to 00000000000000000000 limit 500 from
09/26/12 23:09:03 getblocks -1 to 00000000000000000000 limit 500 from
09/26/12 23:09:03 getblocks -1 to 00000000000000000000 limit 500 from
09/26/12 23:09:03 getblocks -1 to 00000000000000000000 limit 500 from
09/26/12 23:09:03 getblocks -1 to 00000000000000000000 limit 500 from
09/26/12 23:09:03 getblocks -1 to 00000000000000000000 limit 500 from
09/26/12 23:09:03 getblocks -1 to 00000000000000000000 limit 500 from
09/26/12 23:09:03 getblocks -1 to 00000000000000000000 limit 500 from
09/26/12 23:09:03 getblocks -1 to 00000000000000000000 limit 500 from
09/26/12 23:09:05 getblocks -1 to 00000000000000000000 limit 500 from
09/26/12 23:09:05 getblocks -1 to 00000000000000000000 limit 500 from
09/26/12 23:09:05 getblocks -1 to 00000000000000000000 limit 500 from
09/26/12 23:09:05 getblocks -1 to 00000000000000000000 limit 500 from
09/26/12 23:09:05 getblocks -1 to 00000000000000000000 limit 500 from
09/26/12 23:09:05 getblocks -1 to 00000000000000000000 limit 500 from
09/26/12 23:09:06 getblocks -1 to 00000000000000000000 limit 500 from
09/26/12 23:09:06 getblocks -1 to 00000000000000000000 limit 500 from
09/26/12 23:09:08 getblocks -1 to 00000000000000000000 limit 500 from
09/26/12 23:09:08 getblocks -1 to 00000000000000000000 limit 500 from
09/26/12 23:09:09 getblocks -1 to 00000000000000000000 limit 500 from
09/26/12 23:09:09 getblocks -1 to 00000000000000000000 limit 500 from
09/26/12 23:09:10 getblocks -1 to 00000000000000000000 limit 500 from
09/26/12 23:09:11 getblocks -1 to 00000000000000000000 limit 500 from
09/26/12 23:09:11 getblocks -1 to 00000000000000000000 limit 500 from
09/26/12 23:09:11 getblocks -1 to 00000000000000000000 limit 500 from
09/26/12 23:09:13 getblocks -1 to 00000000000000000000 limit 500 from
.........................
09/26/12 23:10:50 received block 000000000000058a8c6c from
09/26/12 23:10:50 ProcessBlock: ACCEPTED orphan 000000000000058a8c6c
........................
09/26/12 23:17:18 received block 00000000000004a18738 from
09/26/12 23:17:18 REORGANIZE
09/26/12 23:17:18 REORGANIZE: Disconnect 1 blocks; 00000000000000d0898b..000000000000037261e3
09/26/12 23:17:18 REORGANIZE: Connect 2 blocks; 00000000000000d0898b..00000000000004a18738
btcguild ====== 50btc?
wtf is btcguild doing with a block that is 2m late? also running some shit that doesnt proof check blocks?
09/26/12 23:08:57 received block 000000000000037261e3 from
09/26/12 23:08:57 SetBestChain: new best=000000000000037261e3 height=200660 work=501601906478243162700 date=09/26/12 23:08:48
09/26/12 23:08:57 ProcessBlock: ACCEPTED
09/26/12 23:08:57 getblocks -1 to 00000000000000000000 limit 500 from
09/26/12 23:08:57 getblocks -1 to 00000000000000000000 limit 500 from
09/26/12 23:08:57 getblocks -1 to 00000000000000000000 limit 500 from
09/26/12 23:08:57 getblocks -1 to 00000000000000000000 limit 500 from
09/26/12 23:08:57 getblocks -1 to 00000000000000000000 limit 500 from
09/26/12 23:08:57 getblocks -1 to 00000000000000000000 limit 500 from
09/26/12 23:08:57 getblocks -1 to 00000000000000000000 limit 500 from
09/26/12 23:08:57 getblocks -1 to 00000000000000000000 limit 500 from
09/26/12 23:08:57 getblocks -1 to 00000000000000000000 limit 500 from
09/26/12 23:08:57 getblocks -1 to 00000000000000000000 limit 500 from
09/26/12 23:08:57 getblocks -1 to 00000000000000000000 limit 500 from
09/26/12 23:08:57 getblocks -1 to 00000000000000000000 limit 500 from
09/26/12 23:08:57 getblocks -1 to 00000000000000000000 limit 500 from
09/26/12 23:08:57 getblocks -1 to 00000000000000000000 limit 500 from
09/26/12 23:08:57 getblocks -1 to 00000000000000000000 limit 500 from
09/26/12 23:08:57 getblocks -1 to 00000000000000000000 limit 500 from
09/26/12 23:08:57 getblocks -1 to 00000000000000000000 limit 500 from
09/26/12 23:08:57 getblocks -1 to 00000000000000000000 limit 500 from
09/26/12 23:08:57 getblocks -1 to 00000000000000000000 limit 500 from
09/26/12 23:08:57 getblocks -1 to 00000000000000000000 limit 500 from
09/26/12 23:08:57 getblocks -1 to 00000000000000000000 limit 500 from
09/26/12 23:08:57 getblocks -1 to 00000000000000000000 limit 500 from
09/26/12 23:08:57 getblocks -1 to 00000000000000000000 limit 500 from
09/26/12 23:08:57 getblocks -1 to 00000000000000000000 limit 500 from
09/26/12 23:08:57 getblocks -1 to 00000000000000000000 limit 500 from
09/26/12 23:08:57 getblocks -1 to 00000000000000000000 limit 500 from
09/26/12 23:08:57 getblocks -1 to 00000000000000000000 limit 500 from
09/26/12 23:08:57 getblocks -1 to 00000000000000000000 limit 500 from
09/26/12 23:08:58 getblocks -1 to 00000000000000000000 limit 500 from
09/26/12 23:08:58 getblocks -1 to 00000000000000000000 limit 500 from
09/26/12 23:08:58 getblocks -1 to 00000000000000000000 limit 500 from
09/26/12 23:08:58 getblocks -1 to 00000000000000000000 limit 500 from
09/26/12 23:08:58 getblocks -1 to 00000000000000000000 limit 500 from
09/26/12 23:08:58 getblocks -1 to 00000000000000000000 limit 500 from
09/26/12 23:08:58 getblocks -1 to 00000000000000000000 limit 500 from
09/26/12 23:08:58 getblocks -1 to 00000000000000000000 limit 500 from
09/26/12 23:08:58 getblocks -1 to 00000000000000000000 limit 500 from
09/26/12 23:08:58 getblocks -1 to 00000000000000000000 limit 500 from
09/26/12 23:08:58 getblocks -1 to 00000000000000000000 limit 500 from
09/26/12 23:08:58 getblocks -1 to 00000000000000000000 limit 500 from
09/26/12 23:08:58 getblocks -1 to 00000000000000000000 limit 500 from
09/26/12 23:08:58 getblocks -1 to 00000000000000000000 limit 500 from
09/26/12 23:08:59 getblocks -1 to 00000000000000000000 limit 500 from
09/26/12 23:08:59 getblocks -1 to 00000000000000000000 limit 500 from
09/26/12 23:09:00 getblocks -1 to 00000000000000000000 limit 500 from
09/26/12 23:09:00 getblocks -1 to 00000000000000000000 limit 500 from
09/26/12 23:09:00 getblocks -1 to 00000000000000000000 limit 500 from
09/26/12 23:09:00 getblocks -1 to 00000000000000000000 limit 500 from
09/26/12 23:09:00 getblocks -1 to 00000000000000000000 limit 500 from
09/26/12 23:09:00 getblocks -1 to 00000000000000000000 limit 500 from
09/26/12 23:09:00 getblocks -1 to 00000000000000000000 limit 500 from
09/26/12 23:09:01 getblocks -1 to 00000000000000000000 limit 500 from
09/26/12 23:09:01 getblocks -1 to 00000000000000000000 limit 500 from
09/26/12 23:09:01 getblocks -1 to 00000000000000000000 limit 500 from
09/26/12 23:09:01 getblocks -1 to 00000000000000000000 limit 500 from
09/26/12 23:09:01 getblocks -1 to 00000000000000000000 limit 500 from
09/26/12 23:09:01 getblocks -1 to 00000000000000000000 limit 500 from
09/26/12 23:09:01 getblocks -1 to 00000000000000000000 limit 500 from
09/26/12 23:09:01 getblocks -1 to 00000000000000000000 limit 500 from
09/26/12 23:09:01 getblocks -1 to 00000000000000000000 limit 500 from
09/26/12 23:09:02 getblocks -1 to 00000000000000000000 limit 500 from
09/26/12 23:09:02 getblocks -1 to 00000000000000000000 limit 500 from
09/26/12 23:09:02 getblocks -1 to 00000000000000000000 limit 500 from
09/26/12 23:09:02 getblocks -1 to 00000000000000000000 limit 500 from
09/26/12 23:09:02 getblocks -1 to 00000000000000000000 limit 500 from
09/26/12 23:09:02 getblocks -1 to 00000000000000000000 limit 500 from
09/26/12 23:09:02 getblocks -1 to 00000000000000000000 limit 500 from
09/26/12 23:09:02 getblocks -1 to 00000000000000000000 limit 500 from
09/26/12 23:09:02 getblocks -1 to 00000000000000000000 limit 500 from
09/26/12 23:09:02 getblocks -1 to 00000000000000000000 limit 500 from
09/26/12 23:09:02 getblocks -1 to 00000000000000000000 limit 500 from
09/26/12 23:09:03 getblocks -1 to 00000000000000000000 limit 500 from
09/26/12 23:09:03 getblocks -1 to 00000000000000000000 limit 500 from
09/26/12 23:09:03 getblocks -1 to 00000000000000000000 limit 500 from
09/26/12 23:09:03 getblocks -1 to 00000000000000000000 limit 500 from
09/26/12 23:09:03 getblocks -1 to 00000000000000000000 limit 500 from
09/26/12 23:09:03 getblocks -1 to 00000000000000000000 limit 500 from
09/26/12 23:09:03 getblocks -1 to 00000000000000000000 limit 500 from
09/26/12 23:09:03 getblocks -1 to 00000000000000000000 limit 500 from
09/26/12 23:09:03 getblocks -1 to 00000000000000000000 limit 500 from
09/26/12 23:09:03 getblocks -1 to 00000000000000000000 limit 500 from
09/26/12 23:09:03 getblocks -1 to 00000000000000000000 limit 500 from
09/26/12 23:09:03 getblocks -1 to 00000000000000000000 limit 500 from
09/26/12 23:09:03 getblocks -1 to 00000000000000000000 limit 500 from
09/26/12 23:09:05 getblocks -1 to 00000000000000000000 limit 500 from
09/26/12 23:09:05 getblocks -1 to 00000000000000000000 limit 500 from
09/26/12 23:09:05 getblocks -1 to 00000000000000000000 limit 500 from
09/26/12 23:09:05 getblocks -1 to 00000000000000000000 limit 500 from
09/26/12 23:09:05 getblocks -1 to 00000000000000000000 limit 500 from
09/26/12 23:09:05 getblocks -1 to 00000000000000000000 limit 500 from
09/26/12 23:09:06 getblocks -1 to 00000000000000000000 limit 500 from
09/26/12 23:09:06 getblocks -1 to 00000000000000000000 limit 500 from
09/26/12 23:09:08 getblocks -1 to 00000000000000000000 limit 500 from
09/26/12 23:09:08 getblocks -1 to 00000000000000000000 limit 500 from
09/26/12 23:09:09 getblocks -1 to 00000000000000000000 limit 500 from
09/26/12 23:09:09 getblocks -1 to 00000000000000000000 limit 500 from
09/26/12 23:09:10 getblocks -1 to 00000000000000000000 limit 500 from
09/26/12 23:09:11 getblocks -1 to 00000000000000000000 limit 500 from
09/26/12 23:09:11 getblocks -1 to 00000000000000000000 limit 500 from
09/26/12 23:09:11 getblocks -1 to 00000000000000000000 limit 500 from
09/26/12 23:09:13 getblocks -1 to 00000000000000000000 limit 500 from
.........................
09/26/12 23:10:50 received block 000000000000058a8c6c from
09/26/12 23:10:50 ProcessBlock: ACCEPTED orphan 000000000000058a8c6c
........................
09/26/12 23:17:18 received block 00000000000004a18738 from
09/26/12 23:17:18 REORGANIZE
09/26/12 23:17:18 REORGANIZE: Disconnect 1 blocks; 00000000000000d0898b..000000000000037261e3
09/26/12 23:17:18 REORGANIZE: Connect 2 blocks; 00000000000000d0898b..00000000000004a18738
btcguild ====== 50btc?
September 26, 2012, 11:55:30 AM
there is a 129.74.74.19 now, as well. probably will just start firewalling subnets
besides the snoopy thing, you can just look at who relayed both of height 200625 blocks
http://blockchain.info/block-index/309829/00000000000002f088d717b7dd96d0dfc6adfbc8ad33776080961a85b66f7470
http://blockchain.info/block-index/309830/00000000000004ec4d02d7df12fec552ced6d7b1f1e2e7ea4b11ce3227921860
it's pretty fast verifying blocks when you turn off the checks , i guess. esp the transactions
besides the snoopy thing, you can just look at who relayed both of height 200625 blocks
http://blockchain.info/block-index/309829/00000000000002f088d717b7dd96d0dfc6adfbc8ad33776080961a85b66f7470
http://blockchain.info/block-index/309830/00000000000004ec4d02d7df12fec552ced6d7b1f1e2e7ea4b11ce3227921860
it's pretty fast verifying blocks when you turn off the checks , i guess. esp the transactions
September 26, 2012, 07:13:44 AM
Ah ok, Snoopy:0.1
this really seems to be something custom, also note that most of them (the Snoopy:0.1) have 0 blocks.
this really seems to be something custom, also note that most of them (the Snoopy:0.1) have 0 blocks.
September 26, 2012, 07:02:33 AM
This is interesting,
if i put connect=82.130.102.160 in my bitcoin.conf, connection immediately fails
with an error. These node(s) seem to be broken somehow, what could cause this?
if i put connect=82.130.102.160 in my bitcoin.conf, connection immediately fails
with an error. These node(s) seem to be broken somehow, what could cause this?
Code:
Bitcoin version v0.7.0.3-g0a4e67a-beta ()
[...]
Done loading
send version message: version 60002, blocks=199752, us=0.0.0.0:0, them=0.0.0.0:0, peer=127.0.0.1:0
ThreadRPCServer started
DNS seeding disabled
ThreadIRCSeed exited
ThreadSocketHandler started
ThreadOpenAddedConnections started
ThreadOpenAddedConnections exited
ThreadOpenConnections started
trying connection 82.130.102.160 lastseen=0.0hrs
ThreadMessageHandler started
Flushed 13190 addresses to peers.dat 24ms
connected 82.130.102.160
send version message: version 60002, blocks=199752, us=0.0.0.0:0, them=82.130.102.160:8333, peer=82.130.102.160:8333
Added time data, samples 2, offset +4 (+0 minutes)
receive version message: version 60001, blocks=0, us=88.76.62.34:59196, them=82.130.102.160:8333,
peer=82.130.102.160:8333
ProcessMessages(ping, 0 bytes) : Exception 'CDataStream::read() : end of data' caught, normally caused by a message
being shorter than its stated length
ProcessMessage(ping, 0 bytes) FAILED
Not sure, that's what I was curious about in the original post. The more of them that connect to you, the more of those messages you'll get. I checked my log and noticed those appearing again and tracked it down to a new node @ 192.12.33.100. 82.130.102.160 also has at least a few ports open, can see @ http://luke.dashjr.org/programs/bitcoin/files/charts/seeds.txt ... search for Snoopy.. not all of 'em are running, but when I tcpkilled it there were 3 diff processes all from that same IP.
I thought it might be some nifty feature/optimization of their software that was relaying the blocks so fast, but I guess a lot of it is probably the removal of some (or all) of the block checks, seeing as how they relayed both of those blocks (same height, the orphan about 2-3 minutes late)
September 26, 2012, 06:00:08 AM
This is interesting,
if i put connect=82.130.102.160 in my bitcoin.conf, connection immediately fails
with an error. These node(s) seem to be broken somehow, what could cause this?
if i put connect=82.130.102.160 in my bitcoin.conf, connection immediately fails
with an error. These node(s) seem to be broken somehow, what could cause this?
Code:
Bitcoin version v0.7.0.3-g0a4e67a-beta ()
[...]
Done loading
send version message: version 60002, blocks=199752, us=0.0.0.0:0, them=0.0.0.0:0, peer=127.0.0.1:0
ThreadRPCServer started
DNS seeding disabled
ThreadIRCSeed exited
ThreadSocketHandler started
ThreadOpenAddedConnections started
ThreadOpenAddedConnections exited
ThreadOpenConnections started
trying connection 82.130.102.160 lastseen=0.0hrs
ThreadMessageHandler started
Flushed 13190 addresses to peers.dat 24ms
connected 82.130.102.160
send version message: version 60002, blocks=199752, us=0.0.0.0:0, them=82.130.102.160:8333, peer=82.130.102.160:8333
Added time data, samples 2, offset +4 (+0 minutes)
receive version message: version 60001, blocks=0, us=88.76.62.34:59196, them=82.130.102.160:8333,
peer=82.130.102.160:8333
ProcessMessages(ping, 0 bytes) : Exception 'CDataStream::read() : end of data' caught, normally caused by a message
being shorter than its stated length
ProcessMessage(ping, 0 bytes) FAILED
September 26, 2012, 05:30:47 AM
September 25, 2012, 09:33:02 PM
actually, this is really annoying now, since there are 9 of them
206.12.16.155
129.74.74.20
128.6.192.156
129.130.252.140
82.130.102.160 (on about 30 or 40 different ports)
137.99.11.86
130.253.21.123
147.102.3.117
129.130.252.141
whenever one connects, i get flooded with the ping fail
206.12.16.155
129.74.74.20
128.6.192.156
129.130.252.140
82.130.102.160 (on about 30 or 40 different ports)
137.99.11.86
130.253.21.123
147.102.3.117
129.130.252.141
whenever one connects, i get flooded with the ping fail
September 18, 2012, 11:36:30 AM
09/18/12 12:41:03 accepted connection 82.130.xx.xx:51434
09/18/12 12:41:03 send version message: version 60002, blocks=199384, us=5.9.xx.xx:8333, them=82.130.xx.xx:51434, peer=82.130.xx.xx:51434
09/18/12 12:41:03 receive version message: version 60001, blocks=0, us=5.9.xx.xx:8333, them=82.130.xx.xx:51196, peer=82.130.xx.xx:51434
09/18/12 12:54:45 accepted connection 82.130.xx.xx:57620
09/18/12 12:54:45 send version message: version 60002, blocks=199384, us=5.9.xx.xx:8333, them=82.130.xx.xx:57620, peer=82.130.xx.xx:57620
09/18/12 12:54:45 receive version message: version 60001, blocks=0, us=5.9.xx.xx:8333, them=82.130.xx.xx:39389, peer=82.130.xx.xx:57620
09/18/12 12:58:35 accepted connection 82.130.xx.xx:59080
09/18/12 12:58:35 send version message: version 60002, blocks=199385, us=5.9.xx.xx:8333, them=82.130.xx.xx:59080, peer=82.130.xx.xx:59080
09/18/12 12:58:35 receive version message: version 60001, blocks=0, us=5.9.xx.xx:8333, them=82.130.xx.xx:58187, peer=82.130.xx.xx:59080
09/18/12 16:29:38 disconnecting node 82.130.xx.xx:51434
09/18/12 16:29:38 disconnecting node 82.130.xx.xx:57620
09/18/12 16:29:38 disconnecting node 82.130.xx.xx:59080
I used tcpkill to drop the connections.
The log:
09/18/12 12:41:03 ProcessMessages(ping, 0 bytes) : Exception 'CDataStream::read() : end of data' caught, normally caused by a message being shorter than its stated length
09/18/12 12:41:03 ProcessMessage(ping, 0 bytes) FAILED
09/18/12 12:46:03 ProcessMessages(ping, 0 bytes) : Exception 'CDataStream::read() : end of data' caught, normally caused by a message being shorter than its stated length
09/18/12 12:46:03 ProcessMessage(ping, 0 bytes) FAILED
09/18/12 12:51:03 ProcessMessages(ping, 0 bytes) : Exception 'CDataStream::read() : end of data' caught, normally caused by a message being shorter than its stated length
09/18/12 12:51:03 ProcessMessage(ping, 0 bytes) FAILED
09/18/12 12:54:45 ProcessMessages(ping, 0 bytes) : Exception 'CDataStream::read() : end of data' caught, normally caused by a message being shorter than its stated length
09/18/12 12:54:45 ProcessMessage(ping, 0 bytes) FAILED
09/18/12 12:56:04 ProcessMessages(ping, 0 bytes) : Exception 'CDataStream::read() : end of data' caught, normally caused by a message being shorter than its stated length
09/18/12 12:56:04 ProcessMessage(ping, 0 bytes) FAILED
09/18/12 12:58:35 ProcessMessages(ping, 0 bytes) : Exception 'CDataStream::read() : end of data' caught, normally caused by a message being shorter than its stated length
09/18/12 12:58:35 ProcessMessage(ping, 0 bytes) FAILED
09/18/12 12:59:45 ProcessMessages(ping, 0 bytes) : Exception 'CDataStream::read() : end of data' caught, normally caused by a message being shorter than its stated length
09/18/12 12:59:45 ProcessMessage(ping, 0 bytes) FAILED
09/18/12 13:01:04 ProcessMessages(ping, 0 bytes) : Exception 'CDataStream::read() : end of data' caught, normally caused by a message being shorter than its stated length
09/18/12 13:01:04 ProcessMessage(ping, 0 bytes) FAILED
09/18/12 13:03:35 ProcessMessages(ping, 0 bytes) : Exception 'CDataStream::read() : end of data' caught, normally caused by a message being shorter than its stated length
09/18/12 13:03:35 ProcessMessage(ping, 0 bytes) FAILED
09/18/12 13:04:45 ProcessMessages(ping, 0 bytes) : Exception 'CDataStream::read() : end of data' caught, normally caused by a message being shorter than its stated length
09/18/12 13:04:45 ProcessMessage(ping, 0 bytes) FAILED
09/18/12 13:06:04 ProcessMessages(ping, 0 bytes) : Exception 'CDataStream::read() : end of data' caught, normally caused by a message being shorter than its stated length
09/18/12 13:06:04 ProcessMessage(ping, 0 bytes) FAILED
09/18/12 13:08:35 ProcessMessages(ping, 0 bytes) : Exception 'CDataStream::read() : end of data' caught, normally caused by a message being shorter than its stated length
09/18/12 13:08:35 ProcessMessage(ping, 0 bytes) FAILED
09/18/12 13:09:45 ProcessMessages(ping, 0 bytes) : Exception 'CDataStream::read() : end of data' caught, normally caused by a message being shorter than its stated length
09/18/12 13:09:45 ProcessMessage(ping, 0 bytes) FAILED
09/18/12 13:11:04 ProcessMessages(ping, 0 bytes) : Exception 'CDataStream::read() : end of data' caught, normally caused by a message being shorter than its stated length
09/18/12 13:11:04 ProcessMessage(ping, 0 bytes) FAILED
09/18/12 13:13:35 ProcessMessages(ping, 0 bytes) : Exception 'CDataStream::read() : end of data' caught, normally caused by a message being shorter than its stated length
09/18/12 13:13:35 ProcessMessage(ping, 0 bytes) FAILED
09/18/12 13:14:45 ProcessMessages(ping, 0 bytes) : Exception 'CDataStream::read() : end of data' caught, normally caused by a message being shorter than its stated length
09/18/12 13:14:45 ProcessMessage(ping, 0 bytes) FAILED
09/18/12 13:16:04 ProcessMessages(ping, 0 bytes) : Exception 'CDataStream::read() : end of data' caught, normally caused by a message being shorter than its stated length
09/18/12 13:16:04 ProcessMessage(ping, 0 bytes) FAILED
09/18/12 13:18:35 ProcessMessages(ping, 0 bytes) : Exception 'CDataStream::read() : end of data' caught, normally caused by a message being shorter than its stated length
09/18/12 13:18:35 ProcessMessage(ping, 0 bytes) FAILED
09/18/12 13:19:45 ProcessMessages(ping, 0 bytes) : Exception 'CDataStream::read() : end of data' caught, normally caused by a message being shorter than its stated length
09/18/12 13:19:45 ProcessMessage(ping, 0 bytes) FAILED
09/18/12 13:21:04 ProcessMessages(ping, 0 bytes) : Exception 'CDataStream::read() : end of data' caught, normally caused by a message being shorter than its stated length
09/18/12 13:21:04 ProcessMessage(ping, 0 bytes) FAILED
09/18/12 13:23:35 ProcessMessages(ping, 0 bytes) : Exception 'CDataStream::read() : end of data' caught, normally caused by a message being shorter than its stated length
09/18/12 13:23:35 ProcessMessage(ping, 0 bytes) FAILED
09/18/12 13:24:45 ProcessMessages(ping, 0 bytes) : Exception 'CDataStream::read() : end of data' caught, normally caused by a message being shorter than its stated length
09/18/12 13:24:45 ProcessMessage(ping, 0 bytes) FAILED
09/18/12 13:26:04 ProcessMessages(ping, 0 bytes) : Exception 'CDataStream::read() : end of data' caught, normally caused by a message being shorter than its stated length
09/18/12 13:26:04 ProcessMessage(ping, 0 bytes) FAILED
09/18/12 13:28:35 ProcessMessages(ping, 0 bytes) : Exception 'CDataStream::read() : end of data' caught, normally caused by a message being shorter than its stated length
09/18/12 13:28:35 ProcessMessage(ping, 0 bytes) FAILED
09/18/12 16:16:04 ProcessMessages(ping, 0 bytes) : Exception 'CDataStream::read() : end of data' caught, normally caused by a message being shorter than its stated length
09/18/12 16:16:04 ProcessMessage(ping, 0 bytes) FAILED
09/18/12 16:18:35 ProcessMessages(ping, 0 bytes) : Exception 'CDataStream::read() : end of data' caught, normally caused by a message being shorter than its stated length
09/18/12 16:18:35 ProcessMessage(ping, 0 bytes) FAILED
09/18/12 16:19:45 ProcessMessages(ping, 0 bytes) : Exception 'CDataStream::read() : end of data' caught, normally caused by a message being shorter than its stated length
09/18/12 16:19:45 ProcessMessage(ping, 0 bytes) FAILED
09/18/12 16:21:04 ProcessMessages(ping, 0 bytes) : Exception 'CDataStream::read() : end of data' caught, normally caused by a message being shorter than its stated length
09/18/12 16:21:04 ProcessMessage(ping, 0 bytes) FAILED
09/18/12 16:23:35 ProcessMessages(ping, 0 bytes) : Exception 'CDataStream::read() : end of data' caught, normally caused by a message being shorter than its stated length
09/18/12 16:23:35 ProcessMessage(ping, 0 bytes) FAILED
09/18/12 16:24:45 ProcessMessages(ping, 0 bytes) : Exception 'CDataStream::read() : end of data' caught, normally caused by a message being shorter than its stated length
09/18/12 16:24:45 ProcessMessage(ping, 0 bytes) FAILED
09/18/12 16:26:04 ProcessMessages(ping, 0 bytes) : Exception 'CDataStream::read() : end of data' caught, normally caused by a message being shorter than its stated length
09/18/12 16:26:04 ProcessMessage(ping, 0 bytes) FAILED
09/18/12 16:28:35 ProcessMessages(ping, 0 bytes) : Exception 'CDataStream::read() : end of data' caught, normally caused by a message being shorter than its stated length
09/18/12 16:28:35 ProcessMessage(ping, 0 bytes) FAILED
(they have stopped since the tcpkill)
Any particular reason for something like that?
09/18/12 12:41:03 send version message: version 60002, blocks=199384, us=5.9.xx.xx:8333, them=82.130.xx.xx:51434, peer=82.130.xx.xx:51434
09/18/12 12:41:03 receive version message: version 60001, blocks=0, us=5.9.xx.xx:8333, them=82.130.xx.xx:51196, peer=82.130.xx.xx:51434
09/18/12 12:54:45 accepted connection 82.130.xx.xx:57620
09/18/12 12:54:45 send version message: version 60002, blocks=199384, us=5.9.xx.xx:8333, them=82.130.xx.xx:57620, peer=82.130.xx.xx:57620
09/18/12 12:54:45 receive version message: version 60001, blocks=0, us=5.9.xx.xx:8333, them=82.130.xx.xx:39389, peer=82.130.xx.xx:57620
09/18/12 12:58:35 accepted connection 82.130.xx.xx:59080
09/18/12 12:58:35 send version message: version 60002, blocks=199385, us=5.9.xx.xx:8333, them=82.130.xx.xx:59080, peer=82.130.xx.xx:59080
09/18/12 12:58:35 receive version message: version 60001, blocks=0, us=5.9.xx.xx:8333, them=82.130.xx.xx:58187, peer=82.130.xx.xx:59080
09/18/12 16:29:38 disconnecting node 82.130.xx.xx:51434
09/18/12 16:29:38 disconnecting node 82.130.xx.xx:57620
09/18/12 16:29:38 disconnecting node 82.130.xx.xx:59080
I used tcpkill to drop the connections.
The log:
09/18/12 12:41:03 ProcessMessages(ping, 0 bytes) : Exception 'CDataStream::read() : end of data' caught, normally caused by a message being shorter than its stated length
09/18/12 12:41:03 ProcessMessage(ping, 0 bytes) FAILED
09/18/12 12:46:03 ProcessMessages(ping, 0 bytes) : Exception 'CDataStream::read() : end of data' caught, normally caused by a message being shorter than its stated length
09/18/12 12:46:03 ProcessMessage(ping, 0 bytes) FAILED
09/18/12 12:51:03 ProcessMessages(ping, 0 bytes) : Exception 'CDataStream::read() : end of data' caught, normally caused by a message being shorter than its stated length
09/18/12 12:51:03 ProcessMessage(ping, 0 bytes) FAILED
09/18/12 12:54:45 ProcessMessages(ping, 0 bytes) : Exception 'CDataStream::read() : end of data' caught, normally caused by a message being shorter than its stated length
09/18/12 12:54:45 ProcessMessage(ping, 0 bytes) FAILED
09/18/12 12:56:04 ProcessMessages(ping, 0 bytes) : Exception 'CDataStream::read() : end of data' caught, normally caused by a message being shorter than its stated length
09/18/12 12:56:04 ProcessMessage(ping, 0 bytes) FAILED
09/18/12 12:58:35 ProcessMessages(ping, 0 bytes) : Exception 'CDataStream::read() : end of data' caught, normally caused by a message being shorter than its stated length
09/18/12 12:58:35 ProcessMessage(ping, 0 bytes) FAILED
09/18/12 12:59:45 ProcessMessages(ping, 0 bytes) : Exception 'CDataStream::read() : end of data' caught, normally caused by a message being shorter than its stated length
09/18/12 12:59:45 ProcessMessage(ping, 0 bytes) FAILED
09/18/12 13:01:04 ProcessMessages(ping, 0 bytes) : Exception 'CDataStream::read() : end of data' caught, normally caused by a message being shorter than its stated length
09/18/12 13:01:04 ProcessMessage(ping, 0 bytes) FAILED
09/18/12 13:03:35 ProcessMessages(ping, 0 bytes) : Exception 'CDataStream::read() : end of data' caught, normally caused by a message being shorter than its stated length
09/18/12 13:03:35 ProcessMessage(ping, 0 bytes) FAILED
09/18/12 13:04:45 ProcessMessages(ping, 0 bytes) : Exception 'CDataStream::read() : end of data' caught, normally caused by a message being shorter than its stated length
09/18/12 13:04:45 ProcessMessage(ping, 0 bytes) FAILED
09/18/12 13:06:04 ProcessMessages(ping, 0 bytes) : Exception 'CDataStream::read() : end of data' caught, normally caused by a message being shorter than its stated length
09/18/12 13:06:04 ProcessMessage(ping, 0 bytes) FAILED
09/18/12 13:08:35 ProcessMessages(ping, 0 bytes) : Exception 'CDataStream::read() : end of data' caught, normally caused by a message being shorter than its stated length
09/18/12 13:08:35 ProcessMessage(ping, 0 bytes) FAILED
09/18/12 13:09:45 ProcessMessages(ping, 0 bytes) : Exception 'CDataStream::read() : end of data' caught, normally caused by a message being shorter than its stated length
09/18/12 13:09:45 ProcessMessage(ping, 0 bytes) FAILED
09/18/12 13:11:04 ProcessMessages(ping, 0 bytes) : Exception 'CDataStream::read() : end of data' caught, normally caused by a message being shorter than its stated length
09/18/12 13:11:04 ProcessMessage(ping, 0 bytes) FAILED
09/18/12 13:13:35 ProcessMessages(ping, 0 bytes) : Exception 'CDataStream::read() : end of data' caught, normally caused by a message being shorter than its stated length
09/18/12 13:13:35 ProcessMessage(ping, 0 bytes) FAILED
09/18/12 13:14:45 ProcessMessages(ping, 0 bytes) : Exception 'CDataStream::read() : end of data' caught, normally caused by a message being shorter than its stated length
09/18/12 13:14:45 ProcessMessage(ping, 0 bytes) FAILED
09/18/12 13:16:04 ProcessMessages(ping, 0 bytes) : Exception 'CDataStream::read() : end of data' caught, normally caused by a message being shorter than its stated length
09/18/12 13:16:04 ProcessMessage(ping, 0 bytes) FAILED
09/18/12 13:18:35 ProcessMessages(ping, 0 bytes) : Exception 'CDataStream::read() : end of data' caught, normally caused by a message being shorter than its stated length
09/18/12 13:18:35 ProcessMessage(ping, 0 bytes) FAILED
09/18/12 13:19:45 ProcessMessages(ping, 0 bytes) : Exception 'CDataStream::read() : end of data' caught, normally caused by a message being shorter than its stated length
09/18/12 13:19:45 ProcessMessage(ping, 0 bytes) FAILED
09/18/12 13:21:04 ProcessMessages(ping, 0 bytes) : Exception 'CDataStream::read() : end of data' caught, normally caused by a message being shorter than its stated length
09/18/12 13:21:04 ProcessMessage(ping, 0 bytes) FAILED
09/18/12 13:23:35 ProcessMessages(ping, 0 bytes) : Exception 'CDataStream::read() : end of data' caught, normally caused by a message being shorter than its stated length
09/18/12 13:23:35 ProcessMessage(ping, 0 bytes) FAILED
09/18/12 13:24:45 ProcessMessages(ping, 0 bytes) : Exception 'CDataStream::read() : end of data' caught, normally caused by a message being shorter than its stated length
09/18/12 13:24:45 ProcessMessage(ping, 0 bytes) FAILED
09/18/12 13:26:04 ProcessMessages(ping, 0 bytes) : Exception 'CDataStream::read() : end of data' caught, normally caused by a message being shorter than its stated length
09/18/12 13:26:04 ProcessMessage(ping, 0 bytes) FAILED
09/18/12 13:28:35 ProcessMessages(ping, 0 bytes) : Exception 'CDataStream::read() : end of data' caught, normally caused by a message being shorter than its stated length
09/18/12 13:28:35 ProcessMessage(ping, 0 bytes) FAILED
09/18/12 16:16:04 ProcessMessages(ping, 0 bytes) : Exception 'CDataStream::read() : end of data' caught, normally caused by a message being shorter than its stated length
09/18/12 16:16:04 ProcessMessage(ping, 0 bytes) FAILED
09/18/12 16:18:35 ProcessMessages(ping, 0 bytes) : Exception 'CDataStream::read() : end of data' caught, normally caused by a message being shorter than its stated length
09/18/12 16:18:35 ProcessMessage(ping, 0 bytes) FAILED
09/18/12 16:19:45 ProcessMessages(ping, 0 bytes) : Exception 'CDataStream::read() : end of data' caught, normally caused by a message being shorter than its stated length
09/18/12 16:19:45 ProcessMessage(ping, 0 bytes) FAILED
09/18/12 16:21:04 ProcessMessages(ping, 0 bytes) : Exception 'CDataStream::read() : end of data' caught, normally caused by a message being shorter than its stated length
09/18/12 16:21:04 ProcessMessage(ping, 0 bytes) FAILED
09/18/12 16:23:35 ProcessMessages(ping, 0 bytes) : Exception 'CDataStream::read() : end of data' caught, normally caused by a message being shorter than its stated length
09/18/12 16:23:35 ProcessMessage(ping, 0 bytes) FAILED
09/18/12 16:24:45 ProcessMessages(ping, 0 bytes) : Exception 'CDataStream::read() : end of data' caught, normally caused by a message being shorter than its stated length
09/18/12 16:24:45 ProcessMessage(ping, 0 bytes) FAILED
09/18/12 16:26:04 ProcessMessages(ping, 0 bytes) : Exception 'CDataStream::read() : end of data' caught, normally caused by a message being shorter than its stated length
09/18/12 16:26:04 ProcessMessage(ping, 0 bytes) FAILED
09/18/12 16:28:35 ProcessMessages(ping, 0 bytes) : Exception 'CDataStream::read() : end of data' caught, normally caused by a message being shorter than its stated length
09/18/12 16:28:35 ProcessMessage(ping, 0 bytes) FAILED
(they have stopped since the tcpkill)
Any particular reason for something like that?
Jump to: