This transaction has not been confirmed for several months.

transaction :  97569b72298123b1c59fd0d26e59f6cfc1ffccae92ab17f499eea16358870679 : 25.6 Iridium
transaction :  45473dfc1cf99a7beadcc468f27f729dee6dbe79f80effca47cc21865f9c38b6 : 27.41 Iridium
transaction :  47268ec3a7e546c2cb15cbffe630af4175881ffd83c866c39e3774976f6c2cc5 : 11.73 Iridium
transaction :  e862c1efdcdc488822b189f49a47f9ce29dbf601d1d3168a333fbd54a2022b77 : 20.76 Iridium
transaction :  436008b7e95f547280e2f2905e9047578608a71d9c831be97eb56b061c106bcc : 16.73 Iridium
Why can not I confirm?

I found the secret patch, and to quote the developer of the pool you feature in your signature: https://github.com/zone117x/node-cryptonote-pool/issues/14
The solution was to switch to a pool fork that explicitly supports Fantomcoin, by default the fork irdpool.fr and irdpool.eu run does not work with this HF and the developer has stated he will not support it. There is your secret patch.
Let it be no secret, Stevebush for whatever reason seems to hate me and seems to be actively attempting to fuck with irdpool.tk. It's getting the point where I feel I need to audit any code that gets pushed out.

Steve is not interested in approximately half the hashrate of the network? Sure that hashrate can go elsewhere. The idea that the developer doesn't seem to care about breaking major chunks of the ecosystem is concerning.

I've re-implemented the pool several times now, with several different forks (including the exact forks other running pools use), with several different forks of the back-end used by the pool forks.

All error messages, and research into them indicate a problem with a hardfork. I will continue my search for the secret fix the developer is withholding (probably located within node-cryptonote-util) for a bit more.

I can attempt to re-implement with entirely new pool software (not the same pool software all current IRD pools run) but this would involve migrating to a completely new DB schema.

I said earlier in this thread when mine77 was shutting down I would continue to run irdpool.tk on the condition it wasn't a major time sink. It now is. I have a actual development work I need to be doing, not reverse engineering someone else's patches.

I'm investigating the issue, something has changed. I'm assuming there's a secret fix the developer has decided not to inform me about again.

...
So the network could be a bit slow now since irdpool.tk had around 150kH/s and those are missing now. Unless they had backup pools for automatic switching configured. But I don't see that hashrate appear in any of the other pools yet.
...

Yes, it found the block 69500 and then apparently disconnected all workers:

Hash Rate: 0.00 H/sec
Connected Miners: 0

All subsequent blocks (69501-69503) have been found by irdpool.fr

So the network could be a bit slow now since irdpool.tk had around 150kH/s and those are missing now. Unless they had backup pools for automatic switching configured. But I don't see that hashrate appear in any of the other pools yet.

By the way all pools have same UI issue : link from tx hash leads to something weird

Pools  irdpool dot tk , irdpool.eu, irdpool.de:

https://chainradar.com/ird/transaction/51330197c7d47e3ae04aeea2a3cb83be734de080579655210eb74b8217b617b7.

Pool irdpool.fr:
https://explorer.mine77.net/#/search/81aba769778f3011fc4550080f28c26776287ec574c1c2b39f9a145f82ad5cd7

why difficulty has raised so much?

Asking for professionalism now? I get you're having fun playing developer by copy+pasting other people's code into a badly launched, out of date bytecoin fork but please understand some of us actually do have real development we're focused on and can't pay attention to every flailing attempt to push a HF within unrealistic time windows or botched version update (as has become the norm in the history of this coin).

I'm just here trying to maintain the oldest beacon on this network, back when there were barely any nodes and massively centralized hashrates. I'm not interested in indulging your fantasies or ego trips, simply to provide a stable service to people who have been mining with me since the very beginning of this coin. It would have been very helpful for you to mention ecosystem breaking bugs. Instead you've explained you intentionally withheld the information because you didn't like the way I said I was going to communicate with you by sending you logs of error messages, or because I don't donate (to you? hah).

I simply reiterate, you fundamentally changed the way the node handled blocks. Not only did you break every pool (or at least any pool that has been around for any real period of time) with your change, you apparently also broke the GUI wallets as well (as per Petiyashaket). You did not ever inform me of this until I sent you the relevant logs (which is precisely the point), at which point the answer was simple because you understood that you had broken anything that communicates with the node via RPC. Instead you decided to intentionally withhold the specific information from me.
While you're stumbling your way through a git pull of the upstream ByteCoin you might bother to note any ecosystem breaking changes next time.
How exactly are you going to handle this when an exchange is trying to communicate with the node software? Get angry at them, too? Clearly it's their fault that you changed the way everything has functioned since the beginning, I mean, it was a bug after all. It's concerns like this that made me want to keep this private.

By fixing the bug in the original code you broke the way every pool has functioned since the very beginning, a bit surprising you consider it outside of the scope of the blockchain development.

I'm referring to the original code the node was built from, and no, the node has not been updated since the last time it was necessary to do so.  http://irdpool.tk is the oldest pool on the network, I will not be subjecting it to every latest patch the moment it comes out before end-users have a chance to test it. This update was applied because it is required, and unlike last time you bothered to actually message me about it.

The way you are posting is embarrassing to this project and the network. Like you I do this for free, but I still have a modest amount of professionalism and I would have been happy to keep this exchange private. This could have been resolved simply by stating the minor change required that *every pool* must do, instead of passive-aggressive taunting.