Topic: Which bitcoin Block Explorer is correct ? (Read 546 times)

I understand now since technically the Bitcoins weren't sent to that address since addresses didn't exist yet but the coins were sent directly to the pubilc key behind the address.

I wonder how the transaction would show up in an old wallet?

Not true.

Determining which is correct depends on first determining what you want the block explorer to do.

Different people have different use cases.


They both show the transaction as valid:
https://blockexplorer.com/tx/0e3e2357e806b6cdb1f70b54c3a3a17b6714ee1f0e68bebb44a74b1efd512098
https://blockchain.info/tx/0e3e2357e806b6cdb1f70b54c3a3a17b6714ee1f0e68bebb44a74b1efd512098

One (blockchain.info) adds it into the balance calculated for address 12c6DSiU4Rq3P4ZxziKxzrL5LmMBrzjrJX (even though the payment wasn't actually made to that address at all).

The other (blockexplorer.com) doesn't add it to the balance for address 12c6DSiU4Rq3P4ZxziKxzrL5LmMBrzjrJX (even though the transaction output can be spent with the same private key as payments to address 12c6DSiU4Rq3P4ZxziKxzrL5LmMBrzjrJX).

Here's an analogy...

Imagine you have two bannk accounts at the same bank (account_a and account_b)

Now imagine that I send you $1000 to account_b. (this is an analogy for receiving 50 BTC encumbered by a P2PK script)

Now imagine that you receive a txt that says that you just received $1000. (this is an analogy for blockchain.info showing the 50 BTC in the balance accessible by the private key)
Now imagine that a moment later you connect to your bank website and look at account_a.  You do NOT see $1000 received?! (this is an analogy for blockexplorer.com not showing the 50 BTC being at the actual address)

Which one is right?  The txt indicating that YOU DID receive $1000 or the website indicating that account_a did NOT receive $1000?

They are both right.  It just depends on what you want to know.

---

The thing to keep in mind here is that there are no actual addresses at the technical level of bitcoin.  Addresses are an abstraction that walet software implements to make it easier for we humans to talk about transferring control over value.  As such, the block explorers implement that abstraction as well.

Blockchain.info appears to be implementing that abstraction based on the private key that would be used to spend the bitcoins, while blockexplorer.com appears to implementing that abstraction based on the type of script used in the output.  Either method is a valid way to implement the abstraction depending on what you want to know about the transaction.

I have also noticed a difference between the two sites. Blockexplorer.com will reflect changes to your address quicker than

Blockchain.info. I think Blockchain.info have a problem with their interface to their explorer. Since I have noticed this, I do

not use Blockchain.info as a Block explorer anymore. 

Well only one can be correct! If a typical Bitcoin client accepts that transacation as valid then the block explorer should show it as valid as well.

They are not unspendable.

That address did NOT receive any bitcoins in the genesis block.


Impossible to know if anybody has the private keys.  The address most likely belongs to Satoshi, and he may or may not still have the private key (if he is, or they are, even still alive).


Only 1


It is not.


They both are.

In the early days of bitcoin, payments were often made to public keys instead of RIPEMD160 hashes.

blockexplorer is only showing the payments that were made to the RIPEMD160 hash in the blockchain.

blockchain.info is converting the public key in the blockchain (which was used in January of 2009 to receive 50 BTC) to it's RIPEMD160 hash value and including it with the payments that were made to the the same hash.

Here is the transaction that blockexplorer is not including when they compute the balance:
https://blockexplorer.com/tx/0e3e2357e806b6cdb1f70b54c3a3a17b6714ee1f0e68bebb44a74b1efd512098

Depending on whether you want to include P2PK payments in the balance with the P2PKH payments, you could consider one or the other of those block explorers to be incorrect.

The first transaction to that address was in 2009 and it was a transaction with no inputs.

That means that the coins were generated because someone mined a block.  Back in 2009, the block reward was 50 BTC.  So blockchain.info is correct.

The only way to be 100% sure is to run a full node, but logically blockchain.info would be correct.

I would bet 50 BTC balance is correct one.
As far as blockchain explorer's u can never be sure with online ones. You can only be sure if you run ur own (full bitcoin client) and check it yourself.
Online explorer's are no reliable at all due to lags, technical problems and bugs.

was completely wrong about this, it's just an early block. my apologies
your question remains...

why are they unspendable ?

nobody has its private keys ?

how many blocks are genesis blocks ?

how did you know that it was genesis block ?

thanks

https://blockexplorer.com/address/12c6DSiU4Rq3P4ZxziKxzrL5LmMBrzjrJX
shows
Final Balance   0.05723154 BTC

While

https://blockchain.info/address/12c6DSiU4Rq3P4ZxziKxzrL5LmMBrzjrJX
shows
Final Balance   50.05723154 BTC

which one is correct ? and why other is incorrect ?

thanks