Title: Error in blockchain ? Post by: aplistir on October 01, 2017, 01:14:41 PM Or maybe a bug in block-explorers ?
This address: "16va6NxJrMGe5d2LP6wUzuVnzBBoKQZKom" Has different amounts of bitcoins in different block-explorers! How can it be possible? blockchani.info says it has 50BTC https://blockchain.info/address/16va6NxJrMGe5d2LP6wUzuVnzBBoKQZKom (https://blockchain.info/address/16va6NxJrMGe5d2LP6wUzuVnzBBoKQZKom) bitinfocharts shows 100BTC https://bitinfocharts.com/bitcoin/address/16va6NxJrMGe5d2LP6wUzuVnzBBoKQZKom (https://bitinfocharts.com/bitcoin/address/16va6NxJrMGe5d2LP6wUzuVnzBBoKQZKom) and blockexplorer shows 0.00050026BTC https://blockexplorer.com/address/16va6NxJrMGe5d2LP6wUzuVnzBBoKQZKom (https://blockexplorer.com/address/16va6NxJrMGe5d2LP6wUzuVnzBBoKQZKom) What is going on in here? Personally I think 100 BTC shown by bitinfocharts is the correct one. Could anyone running a full node check what address: "16va6NxJrMGe5d2LP6wUzuVnzBBoKQZKom" has in it? Title: Re: Error in blockchain ? Post by: LoyceV on October 01, 2017, 01:51:10 PM Interesting find! If I try to import the address into Mycelium (on Android), it crashes first. After a restart it shows 50.00050026 BTC.
http://btc-priceimg.herokuapp.com uses blockchain.info's api: Balance: http://btc-priceimg.herokuapp.com/balance/16va6NxJrMGe5d2LP6wUzuVnzBBoKQZKom/00f https://blockexplorer.com/tx/d5d27987d2a3dfc724e359870c6644b40e497bdc0589a033220fe15429d88599 shows the 50 Bitcoin created from mining, I haven't used this site before, it seems to not include it when checking the address itself. I'd say that's a bug on blockexplorer.com. blockchain.info shows both 50 Bitcoin transactions to that address: block 91812 (https://blockchain.info/block-index/106662/00000000000af0aed4792b1acee3d966af36cf5def14935db8de83d6f9306f2f) and block 91842 (https://blockchain.info/block-index/106692/00000000000a4d0a398161ffc163c503763b1f4360639393e0e4c8e300e0caec), both have the same txid: d5d27987d2a3dfc724e359870c6644b40e497bdc0589a033220fe15429d88599. I read this on I thought trxid is unique (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=946935.0). It's fixed years ago: see https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/blob/master/bip-0030.mediawiki What's more interesting is this: Blockchain.info only shows 50btc in the address: In some sense Blockchain.info is right. Only one of the two transactions is spendable. To put it another way, there is only one transaction that just occurred in two blocks. https://blockchain.info/address/16va6NxJrMGe5d2LP6wUzuVnzBBoKQZKom Title: Re: Error in blockchain ? Post by: miguelmorales85 on October 01, 2017, 02:45:28 PM Or maybe a bug in block-explorers ? This address: "16va6NxJrMGe5d2LP6wUzuVnzBBoKQZKom" Has different amounts of bitcoins in different block-explorers! How can it be possible? blockchani.info says it has 50BTC https://blockchain.info/address/16va6NxJrMGe5d2LP6wUzuVnzBBoKQZKom (https://blockchain.info/address/16va6NxJrMGe5d2LP6wUzuVnzBBoKQZKom) bitinfocharts shows 100BTC https://bitinfocharts.com/bitcoin/address/16va6NxJrMGe5d2LP6wUzuVnzBBoKQZKom (https://bitinfocharts.com/bitcoin/address/16va6NxJrMGe5d2LP6wUzuVnzBBoKQZKom) and blockexplorer shows 0.00050026BTC https://blockexplorer.com/address/16va6NxJrMGe5d2LP6wUzuVnzBBoKQZKom (https://blockexplorer.com/address/16va6NxJrMGe5d2LP6wUzuVnzBBoKQZKom) What is going on in here? Personally I think 100 BTC shown by bitinfocharts is the correct one. Could anyone running a full node check what address: "16va6NxJrMGe5d2LP6wUzuVnzBBoKQZKom" has in it? this is a relaly interesting issue you got there. How did you find this address and why did you start looking for the balance in different block explorers? I'm just curious. Anyway, I thought at first this was a recently transaction and should need to "stabilize" in the network to show the real value but this is a transaction from 2010 ! ??? I got no clue Title: Re: Error in blockchain ? Post by: cr1776 on October 01, 2017, 03:02:59 PM Check out:
https://github.com/kristovatlas/interesting-bitcoin-data/blob/master/README.md And in particular this: https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/blob/master/bip-0030.mediawiki It should help to explain this. Title: Re: Error in blockchain ? Post by: aplistir on October 01, 2017, 07:05:29 PM this is a relaly interesting issue you got there. How did you find this address and why did you start looking for the balance in different block explorers? I'm just curious. Anyway, I thought at first this was a recently transaction and should need to "stabilize" in the network to show the real value but this is a transaction from 2010 ! ??? Wow. Good replies to this thread. I now realized, that I should have googled the address before posting. I thought I had found something new. I was going through a list of old zombie-bitcoins using a script that uses blockchain.info instead of downloading the full blockchain and examining it locally. Just to see how many zombie bitcoins have come to life after the list was made in 2014. (The script is quite bad, as it takes a long time to check the list of addresses) But anyhow among the differences between when the address-list was made and now, there were some odd looking numbers. Among them the address: "16va6NxJrMGe5d2LP6wUzuVnzBBoKQZKom", where in the list it had 100BTC and now it only had 50BTC and this had happened without a single send action. (I did also notice the other one) I checked it with other blockchain-explorers, because bitcoin.info handles some other things uniquely too. Eg. If there is a send action from an address to the same address, blockchain.info counts it as moving 0BTC and it not being a send action from the address ??, whereas other explorers show the actual amount moved and it being a send action. Increasing both the amount of coins send and received. So basically I trust blockchain.info less when there is a difference among blockchain-explorers And what did I find out when examining the zombie coins. Not much, except that during this year(2017) there have been quite many zombie coins from the beginning of 2011 that have come back to life. I thought that was unexpected, because I would assume that coins that have not been touched since 2011 most probable newer would. Might have been a little wrong with my assumption... Title: Re: Error in blockchain ? Post by: aplistir on October 01, 2017, 07:09:42 PM Check out: https://github.com/kristovatlas/interesting-bitcoin-data/blob/master/README.md And in particular this: https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/blob/master/bip-0030.mediawiki It should help to explain this. Wow. Excellent detective work, and also very interesting links. Thanks :) Title: Re: Error in blockchain ? Post by: BenOnceAgain on October 01, 2017, 07:34:25 PM Check out: https://github.com/kristovatlas/interesting-bitcoin-data/blob/master/README.md And in particular this: https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/blob/master/bip-0030.mediawiki It should help to explain this. Thanks for this. As someone that wasn't around in the early years, these are very interesting transactions. I've scanned that BIP but I'm going to read it closer now. Much appreciated. Title: Re: Error in blockchain ? Post by: LoyceV on October 01, 2017, 08:12:59 PM And what did I find out when examining the zombie coins. Not much, except that during this year(2017) there have been quite many zombie coins from the beginning of 2011 that have come back to life. I thought that was unexpected, because I would assume that coins that have not been touched since 2011 most probable newer would. Can you show a list of addresses that became active after 6 years?Might have been a little wrong with my assumption... Title: Re: Error in blockchain ? Post by: aplistir on October 02, 2017, 11:09:33 AM And what did I find out when examining the zombie coins. Not much, except that during this year(2017) there have been quite many zombie coins from the beginning of 2011 that have come back to life. I thought that was unexpected, because I would assume that coins that have not been touched since 2011 most probable newer would. Can you show a list of addresses that became active after 6 years?Might have been a little wrong with my assumption... Cant show the complete list, because I didn't save it, but here is a list of addresses that have been created in January and February of 2011, and which have become active recently. (I only examined addresses having more than 100BTC in them) BTC when activated address -------------------------------------------------------------------------- 450 2016-2017 1EXMbzUdJAzsimm2ALzwRW3JnahSXuayuJ 200 2017 1J1TpQjCizvH8TfnCMKoz1qh75nPoua23M 200 2017 12XafG5uejzEvTUD1p2fwECFDfpL94B4mb 10000 2015 1Le6MkiTvkorvC1JwYXzQUSfqA3ebzGW7N 332 2017 19t4yqHj3YQTmQr22Y5ffEFPpNb2h4kkPM 2270 2015-2017 1GDCa1L4Z8DBZQv8gWK8k1HZkMdFy4mbGU 700 2017 155BWJVfvVhUXsHG6nKu9ZFswv3oEbJJMk 988 2017 1rqA6iteBVryQV3yjF7DHR3Mew8PhxNV8 5185 2017 1kmGdkFoLatLh92EBBLkVPNT4sKbc3ryq 3192 2017 19QDGMRKdZ9BpDZP2Re6yaDqNQ7zN4wo1D 347 2016-2017 1PVgK7vJff3ftdbNukkWQFk2Qx5HzXNeXx 250 2017 1A7UjtqmZdW67daZcbTFzU8qtnCapUFuhd 1000 2017 12Xds1x9wMgJSAmpnchFQrg5BUPHbwJ3ec 1000 2017 12wHYjaPmCtAyorBMQcnJx24ifjZPSy7L2 I would say it is surprising how many BTC, came back to life. |