Blockchain split of 4 July 2015

[favdesu]

Is there a way to force those spv mining to have their work count as less to discourage it?

if I understand it correctly, they are losing a lot of money at the moment due to mining on an obsolete fork... so that's punishment

[BitUsher]

Just for some extra clarity..........
For consumer level users: make sure that you (or your wallet provider) are on Bitcoin 0.9.5 or later, and wait for 30 confirmations on your transfers.
For miners:  stop SPV mining, validate everything or lose income.

(and, obviously, transfer all your BTC into nice stable NXT....... )

Consumers on 0.9.5 or later are safe an do not have to wait for 30 confirmations. This recommendation is for SPV/web wallet wallet users who are unaware which version they are connected to. Most web wallets and SPV wallets are safe in reality but users should either check or wait 30 confirmations.

This is a large warning to users to not only be careful and skeptical about bitcoin but be that more careful with using any alt as they have a small fraction of developers debugging , testing and warning users compared to bitcoin.

So this will only potentially effect people who are making transaction, sending & receiving coins atm?
If I'm a simple HODLER & haven't & won't be buying any coins this weekend I'm safe & ok yes? My BTC's in several wallets & paper wallets are ok & I can totally ignore this?
Thanks in advance to anybody who responds.

This only effect Bitcoin users using a node that is 0.9.4 or earlier whether directly or through an SPV /web wallet. The only risk they have is if a malicious attacker tries to double spend with them. To avoid this check with your connected node to make sure you are up to date, use an up to date bitcoin core node, or wait 30 confirmations.

There was never any risks to you losing your coins in paper wallets or cold storage even if you started up an old version of core.

[dooglus]

As part of the BIP66 rules, once 950 of the last 1,000 blocks were version 3 (v3) blocks, all upgraded miners would reject version 2 (v2) blocks.

Early morning UTC on 4 July 2015, the 950/1000 (95%) threshold was reached. Shortly thereafter, a small miner (part of the non-upgraded 5%) mined an invalid block--as was an expected occurrence. Unfortunately, it turned out that roughly half the network hash rate was mining without fully validating blocks (called SPV mining), and built new blocks on top of that invalid block.

Note that the roughly 50% of the network that was SPV mining had explicitly indicated that they would enforce the BIP66 rules. By not doing so, several large miners have lost over $50,000 dollars worth of mining income so far.

The bolded points:

95% of the network was claiming to be mining v3 blocks,
50% of the network was SPV mining,
but only 50% of the SPV miners were claiming to be mining v3 blocks?

Doesn't that mean that 50% of the SPV miners, and so 25% of the network wasn't claiming to be mining v3 blocks?

If so, how did we reach the 95% trigger?

[S4VV4S]

As part of the BIP66 rules, once 950 of the last 1,000 blocks were version 3 (v3) blocks, all upgraded miners would reject version 2 (v2) blocks.

Early morning UTC on 4 July 2015, the 950/1000 (95%) threshold was reached. Shortly thereafter, a small miner (part of the non-upgraded 5%) mined an invalid block--as was an expected occurrence. Unfortunately, it turned out that roughly half the network hash rate was mining without fully validating blocks (called SPV mining), and built new blocks on top of that invalid block.

Note that the roughly 50% of the network that was SPV mining had explicitly indicated that they would enforce the BIP66 rules. By not doing so, several large miners have lost over $50,000 dollars worth of mining income so far.

The bolded points:

95% of the network was claiming to be mining v3 blocks,
50% of the network was SPV mining,
but only 50% of the SPV miners were claiming to be mining v3 blocks?

Doesn't that mean that 50% of the SPV miners, and so 25% of the network wasn't claiming to be mining v3 blocks?

If so, how did we reach the 95% trigger?

Perhaps they were only claiming to be mining v3 blocks but not actually doing so... ?

[BitUsher]

As part of the BIP66 rules, once 950 of the last 1,000 blocks were version 3 (v3) blocks, all upgraded miners would reject version 2 (v2) blocks.

Early morning UTC on 4 July 2015, the 950/1000 (95%) threshold was reached. Shortly thereafter, a small miner (part of the non-upgraded 5%) mined an invalid block--as was an expected occurrence. Unfortunately, it turned out that roughly half the network hash rate was mining without fully validating blocks (called SPV mining), and built new blocks on top of that invalid block.

Note that the roughly 50% of the network that was SPV mining had explicitly indicated that they would enforce the BIP66 rules. By not doing so, several large miners have lost over $50,000 dollars worth of mining income so far.

The bolded points:

95% of the network was claiming to be mining v3 blocks,
50% of the network was SPV mining,
but only 50% of the SPV miners were claiming to be mining v3 blocks?

Doesn't that mean that 50% of the SPV miners, and so 25% of the network wasn't claiming to be mining v3 blocks?

If so, how did we reach the 95% trigger?

I has nothing directly to do with BIP66 (although this is what was the case this time) as this scenario would have existed for any invalid block being picked up by SPV miners. F2Pool and Antpool who were SPV mining actually did adopt v3 blocks/ BIP 66 but due to not validating BTC Nuggets block (to gain a slight latency advantage) they began mining on the wrong chain. Thus it was BTC Nuggets who was part of the 5% who didn't upgrade to the newest v3 blocks.  

Perhaps they were only claiming to be mining v3 blocks but not actually doing so... ?

It is not possible unless they quickly switched back to v2 blocks after updating to v3 and the 95% thresh-hold was reached. All evidence points to a risk they undertook by the process of SPV mining itself where they picked up on  BTC Nuggets invalid block without validating it.

[scarsbergholden]

As part of the BIP66 rules, once 950 of the last 1,000 blocks were version 3 (v3) blocks, all upgraded miners would reject version 2 (v2) blocks.

Early morning UTC on 4 July 2015, the 950/1000 (95%) threshold was reached. Shortly thereafter, a small miner (part of the non-upgraded 5%) mined an invalid block--as was an expected occurrence. Unfortunately, it turned out that roughly half the network hash rate was mining without fully validating blocks (called SPV mining), and built new blocks on top of that invalid block.

Note that the roughly 50% of the network that was SPV mining had explicitly indicated that they would enforce the BIP66 rules. By not doing so, several large miners have lost over $50,000 dollars worth of mining income so far.

The bolded points:

95% of the network was claiming to be mining v3 blocks,
50% of the network was SPV mining,
but only 50% of the SPV miners were claiming to be mining v3 blocks?

Doesn't that mean that 50% of the SPV miners, and so 25% of the network wasn't claiming to be mining v3 blocks?

If so, how did we reach the 95% trigger?

Perhaps they were only claiming to be mining v3 blocks but not actually doing so... ?

Is there a explorer we could see on this fork, because it would be good to compare block times and since what block has this started from their claims.

[dooglus]

As part of the BIP66 rules, once 950 of the last 1,000 blocks were version 3 (v3) blocks, all upgraded miners would reject version 2 (v2) blocks.

Early morning UTC on 4 July 2015, the 950/1000 (95%) threshold was reached. Shortly thereafter, a small miner (part of the non-upgraded 5%) mined an invalid block--as was an expected occurrence. Unfortunately, it turned out that roughly half the network hash rate was mining without fully validating blocks (called SPV mining), and built new blocks on top of that invalid block.

Note that the roughly 50% of the network that was SPV mining had explicitly indicated that they would enforce the BIP66 rules. By not doing so, several large miners have lost over $50,000 dollars worth of mining income so far.

The bolded points:

95% of the network was claiming to be mining v3 blocks,
50% of the network was SPV mining,
but only 50% of the SPV miners were claiming to be mining v3 blocks?

Doesn't that mean that 50% of the SPV miners, and so 25% of the network wasn't claiming to be mining v3 blocks?

If so, how did we reach the 95% trigger?

Perhaps they were only claiming to be mining v3 blocks but not actually doing so... ?

I think you missed my point.

[monbux]

So this will only potentially effect people who are making transaction, sending & receiving coins atm?
If I'm a simple HODLER & haven't & won't be buying any coins this weekend I'm safe & ok yes?
Thanks in advance to anybody who responds.

Hodlers are unaffected

Payers, technically speaking, are unaffected, despite that your payees may require more confirmations than usual

Payees, with Bitcoin core 0.9.5 or above, are unaffected.

Payees, with anything else, please follow the instructions in the header of the forum

So, just to confirm, you ARE able to send and receive transactions on bitcoin wallets that aren't 0.9.5 and up, as long as you wait for an extra 30 confirmations?
I'm using blockchain.info as my day to day use wallet.

[Quickseller]

As part of the BIP66 rules, once 950 of the last 1,000 blocks were version 3 (v3) blocks, all upgraded miners would reject version 2 (v2) blocks.

Early morning UTC on 4 July 2015, the 950/1000 (95%) threshold was reached. Shortly thereafter, a small miner (part of the non-upgraded 5%) mined an invalid block--as was an expected occurrence. Unfortunately, it turned out that roughly half the network hash rate was mining without fully validating blocks (called SPV mining), and built new blocks on top of that invalid block.

Note that the roughly 50% of the network that was SPV mining had explicitly indicated that they would enforce the BIP66 rules. By not doing so, several large miners have lost over $50,000 dollars worth of mining income so far.

The bolded points:

95% of the network was claiming to be mining v3 blocks,
50% of the network was SPV mining,
but only 50% of the SPV miners were claiming to be mining v3 blocks?

Doesn't that mean that 50% of the SPV miners, and so 25% of the network wasn't claiming to be mining v3 blocks?

If so, how did we reach the 95% trigger?

Perhaps they were only claiming to be mining v3 blocks but not actually doing so... ?

I think you missed my point.

Changing the headers does not actually do anything except show that the miners are voting "yes".

The miners should have started to implement the new rules of the soft fork as soon as they showed the new headers, however some were not doing this, and voted yes but did not implement the new rules

[BitUsher]

So, just to confirm, you ARE able to send and receive transactions on bitcoin wallets that aren't 0.9.5 and up, as long as you wait for an extra 30 confirmations?
I'm using blockchain.info as my day to day use wallet.

All users on any wallet can send and receive Tx just fine. The Tx were being picked up on both chains. The risk and reason you would need to wait 30 confirmations had to deal with someone attempting to create a double spend attack where you are using a wallet on 0.9.4 and before that is vulnerable and possibly may be on the wrong chain.

In other words :
Someone pays you 100 dollars to your SPV wallet which is connected to a node on 0.9.4 or before. That node just so happens to be on the wrong chain. You start to receive confirmations coming in and assume the transaction is good. The attacker is aware of the forked chain and respends the same BTC on the other chain. When your node makes the correction and jumps on the correct chain it invalidates your BTC that was previously confirmed on the wrong chain.

[jl2012]

So this will only potentially effect people who are making transaction, sending & receiving coins atm?
If I'm a simple HODLER & haven't & won't be buying any coins this weekend I'm safe & ok yes?
Thanks in advance to anybody who responds.

Hodlers are unaffected

Payers, technically speaking, are unaffected, despite that your payees may require more confirmations than usual

Payees, with Bitcoin core 0.9.5 or above, are unaffected.

Payees, with anything else, please follow the instructions in the header of the forum

So, just to confirm, you ARE able to send and receive transactions on bitcoin wallets that aren't 0.9.5 and up, as long as you wait for an extra 30 confirmations?
I'm using blockchain.info as my day to day use wallet.

Yes, all wallets are working but you should wait longer if you are not using Bitcoin Core 0.9.5 or above

I believe blockchain.info wallet is vulnerable

[yayayo]

A very serious event for sure - but seems to have been mostly fixed already.

It shows, that relying on SPV wallets is not a good idea at all. Only full nodes offer full security. That's why excessive increases in blocksize are dangerous: The number of full nodes will decline further, because the average user doesn't have the resources to run them. In turn, the system as a whole will become less secure and more vulnerable to events like this.

ya.ya.yo!

[Vaccomondus]

So this will only potentially effect people who are making transaction, sending & receiving coins atm?
If I'm a simple HODLER & haven't & won't be buying any coins this weekend I'm safe & ok yes?
Thanks in advance to anybody who responds.

Hodlers are unaffected

Payers, technically speaking, are unaffected, despite that your payees may require more confirmations than usual

Payees, with Bitcoin core 0.9.5 or above, are unaffected.

Payees, with anything else, please follow the instructions in the header of the forum

[Slark]

A very serious event for sure - but seems to have been mostly fixed already.

It shows, that relying on SPV wallets is not a good idea at all. Only full nodes offer full security. That's why excessive increases in blocksize are dangerous: The number of full nodes will decline further, because the average user doesn't have the resources to run them. In turn, the system as a whole will become less secure and more vulnerable to events like this.

ya.ya.yo!

What kind of resource are you talkin about? The only thing you need really is disc space (for now blockchain info is about 42GB big) every stationary PC or laptop is capable of storing more.
It is not resources we lack, it is that people are lazy is the problem.

[loshia]

Chinese are famous with their skils

[Sakarias-Corporation]

A very serious event for sure - but seems to have been mostly fixed already.

It shows, that relying on SPV wallets is not a good idea at all. Only full nodes offer full security. That's why excessive increases in blocksize are dangerous: The number of full nodes will decline further, because the average user doesn't have the resources to run them. In turn, the system as a whole will become less secure and more vulnerable to events like this.

ya.ya.yo!

What kind of resource are you talkin about? The only thing you need really is disc space (for now blockchain info is about 42GB big) every stationary PC or laptop is capable of storing more.
It is not resources we lack, it is that people are lazy is the problem.

I don't think you understand....
For some people it will take weeks or worst case a month+ to download the QT...

[neurotypical]

Cool, i almost had a heart attack as I came really relax after a workout and swimming in the pool. This sounded pretty fucking catastrophic. Glad im paranoid and never went outside Bitcoin QT and always keep it updated. It shows how you can't trust anything that doesn't download the entire blockchain locally. This is a huge problem since in the future maybe it will be impossible for a lot of people to deal with huge ass blockchains. It's also impractical for mass adoption, most people will not deal with full nodes like us nerds do.

[RustyNomad]

A very serious event for sure - but seems to have been mostly fixed already.

It shows, that relying on SPV wallets is not a good idea at all. Only full nodes offer full security. That's why excessive increases in blocksize are dangerous: The number of full nodes will decline further, because the average user doesn't have the resources to run them. In turn, the system as a whole will become less secure and more vulnerable to events like this.

ya.ya.yo!

What kind of resource are you talkin about? The only thing you need really is disc space (for now blockchain info is about 42GB big) every stationary PC or laptop is capable of storing more.
It is not resources we lack, it is that people are lazy is the problem.

I don't think you understand....
For some people it will take weeks or worst case a month+ to download the QT...

Plus the bandwidth consumed everyday in staying updated. Not everybody is sitting on a 'no-limits' connection.

[chiguireitor]

Problem solved: switch to a smaller but more dedicated dev's pool (kano, slush, etc) and don't give crap about variance.

[jonald_fyookball]

A very serious event for sure - but seems to have been mostly fixed already.

It shows, that relying on SPV wallets is not a good idea at all.
ya.ya.yo!

I don't agree.  SPV is fine for everyday and small transactions.
Plus you can verify large received transactions on several places if you dont
have a full node.