They're stored in your block database forever. You'll see them along with the other blocks if you use -printblock or -printblocktree.
Okay thanks. And that will then be all orphans that occurred network wide, not just local ones. Hoping there might already be something like block explorer to analyse them. I'd like to get timestamps out of them and the blocks occurring before and after orphans. |
|
|
|
... what exactly is the technical problem you are trying to solve. I don't think you've specified the problem.
the technical problem is the following : I would like to receive bitcoins from different people on a single receiving address, and still be able to know who paid me. is that clear enough ? Perhaps. Though that would be a feature rather than a technical problem, I'd think. The s/ware is still beta and still getting stabilised, the network is pretty chaotic, but I'm sure you'd be welcome to try implementing it. |
|
|
|
I haven't seen anything browsable, but they do happen, and they are generally resolved within 1 or 2 blocks.
So is there no record kept of them? The debug.log prints a "REORGANIZED" message for the nodes that were working on the orphaned chain, correct? Are these the same as the "Invalid" blocks that the pools sometimes report? |
|
|
|
Anybody notice that EVERY pool [at least that I have looked at] is reporting those invalids? BTCMine doesn't, but they had a technical problem where they were cycling the same data over and over or something like that. It lead to a 10 hour round which seems to be where the invalid blocks were. So, who actually won the invalid blocks that so many pools are seeing?
I have a hunch it was an orphanning attack but I need to build up some more evidence. It would be instructive to track those blocks that beat out the pool blocks that were orphanned. |
|
|
|
wow... it's kinda nerve wrecking that it's going up so quick.
only if you didn't expect it ... the steel balls will be necessary when it blasts through a $100. |
|
|
|
People, if the technical aspects of Bitcoin prove to be solid, and it becomes a widely accepted medium of exchange, it could not only become MONEY, but the best money the world has know so far, because of its capability to be managed digitally which allows the instant transfer allover the world without any centralized authority. Yes, and it is very good already, some might say the premier, in these areas particularly; portable divisible durable thnks icecoins for spelling that all out cogently. |
|
|
|
|
fault finding is good, it is open source after all, bug reports are welcome, intentions to fix things are extra welcomed.
|
|
|
|
cue all the libertarians who don't understand even basics about ecology....
i agree that a steady state economy is both desirable and necessary.
i spent too many years arguing politics on other web forums to argue about it here though.
.. a tired and jaded political ecologist ... you are ripe for conversion to libertarianism then, welcome! Ecology does not provide "resources", people value whichever materials from their surroundings that are most efficient to fulfill their needs. Last century it was iron-ore from the ground, this century it is carbon fibre, 2 millenia ago it was tin, next century it maybe matter transmutators. Resource substitution is the missing link in your arguments for the ecosystem protection. I like a walk in the forest and playing with the animals as much as the next guy. |
|
|
|
a) Wouldn't the net effect of this sharing work proposal be to synchronise the difficulties of the two block chains?
b) Is that the desired outcome?
I don't think so. "You don't think so" to part a) or part b)? Neither part a nor b. I think the desired outcome is that with just a single hash computation, a miner could potentially generate a valid block on any chain connected in this way. Okay. So my reasoning goes; - there needs to be some incentive for individual miner to submit lesser difficulty shares to alternate blockchain - given the incentive, the individual miner will submit as many lesser difficulty shares as possible to the alternate blockchain - given the incentive most, if not all, miners on BTC network, will submit as many lower difficulty shares as possible to alternate blockchain - net effect, the hashpower being pointed at alternate block chain will be nearly same as that pointed at BTC, hence difficulty will rise on alternate block chain until they are synchronised |
|
|
|
Try pinging the server, see what kind of results you get. If you're using phoenix, the problem will normally go away completely by adding -q 3 to your command arguments. What's the address for that? "btcguild.com" never replies to pings for me .... I can mine there though. |
|
|
|
Somebody needs to put together "The Writing of Satoshi Nakamoto" book so that we can judge for ourselves.
Actually would almost be worth a bounty ... better than getting some second hand stories through "unk". |
|
|
|
a) Wouldn't the net effect of this sharing work proposal be to synchronise the difficulties of the two block chains?
b) Is that the desired outcome?
I don't think so. "You don't think so" to part a) or part b)? |
|
|
|
What exactly is the problem? Electricity? The world is running out of electricity now? Lights are still on here.
I read somewhere that someone was using diesel generators for his Bitcoin rig. Sounds like a damn fine idea if you have the capital cost already sunk in the kit and all you need is diesel to run it.
The problem is that you can't buy electricity with Bitcoins. You are dependent upon exchanges, which can be shut down. Diesel doesn't help, it hurts. Paying $0.30/kWh is ludicrous. And you can't buy diesel with Bitcoins either. Bio-diesel? From switch-grass? As long as you can convert to some other form of exchange and then buy the necessary equipment it is boot-strapping itself. Not being able to buy electricity or equipment with BTC is a moot point if the network resources can be got with alternative exchange mechanisms, albeit with fees and friction, not ideal but no biggie. The exchanges are a central weakness but there is the otc, f2f exchanges and other avenues springing up every day, it will work around any obstacles thrown up, the incentives are velly strong. |
|
|
|
It would make more sense to fix the miners to accept whatever difficulty the pool requests rather than the other way around.
Poclbm miners will already just work on whatever diff. is sent to them. |
|
|
|
|
Wouldn't the net effect of this sharing work proposal be to synchronise the difficulties of the two block chains?
Is that the desired outcome?
|
|
|
|
|
Anybody got a database or similar of orphan blocks?
How often are they occurring, (have they occurred)?
Time to solve for following blocks, chain reorganisations, etc?
|
|
|
|
It's a problem. I've said so before. Most people here don't see it as a problem, though.
What exactly is the problem? Electricity? The world is running out of electricity now? Lights are still on here. I read somewhere that someone was using diesel generators for his Bitcoin rig. Sounds like a damn fine idea if you have the capital cost already sunk in the kit and all you need is diesel to run it. |
|
|
|
Looks like the difficulty is really taking off! I wonder if that has anything to do with bitcoin's difficulty..?
Nah, mostly just speculative capacity I'd guess ... people don't believe me when I say that difficulty can drive price but watch this space. |
|
|
|
|
... just us three then? We are the worst inter-netters ever? I'm glad you find us "amusing to you", and yet "extremely frustrating".
You signed up just to filter us out and yet here you are, posting quite liberally, amongst your hated "worst ever" fellows. Welcome to your personal hell that you just built for yourself. I think I will continue to miss every one of your "nuances or reflections" .. please do block us out, the scroll button works on your computer?
|
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
