Topic: The first over 1000 mb block ever mined on btc network (Read 415 times)
Yep. Anyways, sad cause here are not so many talks about this historic moment! Finally btc is alive!
1. the 4 MB is the block "Weight" not block size.
as you can see the block weight of above block is 3996.461 kWU according to blockchain.info
Weight is just a multiplier for non-SegWit data, specifically each byte of non-SegWit data is 4 weight units. As you just demonstrated, the weight is not the same as the block size, which is 1,032,119 bytes, not 3,996,713 bytes. You can plainly see the block size by dumping the block's raw data into a file size utility:as you can see the block weight of above block is 3996.461 kWU according to blockchain.info
Code:
$ bitcoin-cli getblock 00000000000000000139cb443e16442fcd07a4a0e0788dd045ee3cf268982016 false | xxd -r -p | wc -c
1032119
See? No tricks: there's exactly 1,032,119 bytes of data in that block.1032119
2. how do you explain all the other block explorers showing the size as 988.2 kB
blocktrail
blockcypher
They are (incorrectly) showing the stripped size of the block, ie, with all SegWit data removed. It is not possible to validate SegWit transactions with this data removed, and SegWit nodes will not be able to sync from it.blocktrail
blockcypher
3. there are still legacy nodes on the network that will reject any block that is bigger then 1 MB so that block can not be valid if we want to be backward compatible.
That is what stripped blocks are for. They are not forward compatible with SegWit nodes, and any old node that upgrades to SegWit will need to download these blocks again to get the full data. Meanwhile, Antpool is mining much smaller blocks than they were before SegWit: https://blockchain.info/blocks/AntPool
Before SegWit they were talking about how full the blocks are, now they're mining small blocks and then people are complaining about SegWit having a lack of capacity. It's a shame really.
Hopefully SegWit will get used properly over the next few weeks.
P.S. English link: https://blockchain.info/block/00000000000000000139cb443e16442fcd07a4a0e0788dd045ee3cf268982016
Well, we all know that there were some... interesting things going on before the fork, and after the fork they all seemed to come to a halt. Of course, I'm referring to the spam attacks.Before SegWit they were talking about how full the blocks are, now they're mining small blocks and then people are complaining about SegWit having a lack of capacity. It's a shame really.
Hopefully SegWit will get used properly over the next few weeks.
P.S. English link: https://blockchain.info/block/00000000000000000139cb443e16442fcd07a4a0e0788dd045ee3cf268982016
It's not like they have to aggressively make use of the space that they have available when there is very little that they have to be pushing through. The chain looks relatively free and there isn't that much backing it up (to my knowledge), so there will be a lot less large blocks to be mining in the first place.
And spam attacks will be a lot less successful overall as well.
this is impossible to do. which means either that block is invalid and the rest of them have built on top of an invalid and orphan chain. or it means that blockchain.info made a mistake.
No, SegWit is now active, which increases the maximum block size to 4MB. That block is indeed 1,032,119 bytes. Blockchain.info is correct (for once).i have a couple of issues with what you just said, and i don't understand.
1. the 4 MB is the block "Weight" not block size.
as you can see the block weight of above block is 3996.461 kWU according to blockchain.info
2. how do you explain all the other block explorers showing the size as 988.2 kB
blocktrail
blockcypher
3. there are still legacy nodes on the network that will reject any block that is bigger then 1 MB so that block can not be valid if we want to be backward compatible.
this is impossible to do. which means either that block is invalid and the rest of them have built on top of an invalid and orphan chain. or it means that blockchain.info made a mistake.
No, SegWit is now active, which increases the maximum block size to 4MB. That block is indeed 1,032,119 bytes. Blockchain.info is correct (for once).
this is impossible to do. which means either that block is invalid and the rest of them have built on top of an invalid and orphan chain. or it means that blockchain.info made a mistake.
and with a deeper look https://www.blocktrail.com/BTC/block/00000000000000000139cb443e16442fcd07a4a0e0788dd045ee3cf268982016 the later is true.
in other words blockchain.info messed up again. you can clearly see that in blocktrail that size is 988.2 kB which is under 1 MB and correct.
and with a deeper look https://www.blocktrail.com/BTC/block/00000000000000000139cb443e16442fcd07a4a0e0788dd045ee3cf268982016 the later is true.
in other words blockchain.info messed up again. you can clearly see that in blocktrail that size is 988.2 kB which is under 1 MB and correct.
Meanwhile, Antpool is mining much smaller blocks than they were before SegWit: https://blockchain.info/blocks/AntPool
Before SegWit they were talking about how full the blocks are, now they're mining small blocks and then people are complaining about SegWit having a lack of capacity. It's a shame really.
Hopefully SegWit will get used properly over the next few weeks.
P.S. English link: https://blockchain.info/block/00000000000000000139cb443e16442fcd07a4a0e0788dd045ee3cf268982016
Before SegWit they were talking about how full the blocks are, now they're mining small blocks and then people are complaining about SegWit having a lack of capacity. It's a shame really.
Hopefully SegWit will get used properly over the next few weeks.
P.S. English link: https://blockchain.info/block/00000000000000000139cb443e16442fcd07a4a0e0788dd045ee3cf268982016
Take a look, enjoy, let's talk
https://blockchain.info/ro/block/00000000000000000139cb443e16442fcd07a4a0e0788dd045ee3cf268982016
https://blockchain.info/ro/block/00000000000000000139cb443e16442fcd07a4a0e0788dd045ee3cf268982016
Jump to: