If your wallet doesnt do this via debug console, youre on a fork!
getblockhash 11072
608ab1d91366798abe291d7c103bb6d354c7cd593000aad5e1e57accdf9dff1e
getblockhash 11072
05adfeb1a920fb5e1a8dba6b6f52aad6e690e5e35cfd3ee28d1e8c889ddfeb8c
thats what im getting.
I had that too lol.
So I should bootstrap?
I did too. I'm bootstrapping now to see if it will sync right.
edit: It didn't. I just went back to the 05adfeb1a920fb5e1a8dba6b6f52aad6e690e5e35cfd3ee28d1e8c889ddfeb8c fork for now.
Wurst, what's wrong with our fork? Can you get on that one?
It takes two to fork.
I currently have 6 nodes "on my my side", so you better join me.
Delete blockchain files, put bootstrap into folder, start wallet with "-connect lkta5xj5nlnxxmrt.onion" - thats my sync node".
Reason for the fork happening: Large part of the weight distributed over few nodes. Will stabilize once more nodes come online.
For now, the right fork is where I am on (so you can easily sync to it with "-connect lkta5xj5nlnxxmrt.onion" and bootstrap in case u forked). If bittrex is online, bittrex is the right fork. Currently I'm thinking - if those forks continue to happen - it might be wise to reduce the amount of blocks generated over time per wallet:
1st thought: 3mins min between blocks per wallet/node/address.
Effects/Facts:
- Easy fix
- Blockchain is working now, so we can do updates with proper forking at given block height without even interrupting the network - with enough time for everybody to update the client. As it is meant to be done.
- Forking risk would be greatly reduced
- The network would be a little slower (wouldnt matter with only 4 confirms needed - if u ask me).
- PoS rewards per block mintet gets bigger
- 0.00 reward blocks wouldl be greatly reduced up to almost no more 0.00 blocks.
- Chain-mining (where you mine a sequence of blocks) wont occur any more.
Any thoughts on this?