Blockchain split of 4 July 2015

[wlefever]

Well that wasn't something I expected to wake up, and read.  Looks like it is mostly fixed at this point, and hopefully can be prevented in the future?

[luthermarcus]

Here's some more info I found for people interested in what has happened and may happen again.
Block Versions

    Version 1 was introduced in the genesis block (January 2009).

    Version 2 was introduced in Bitcoin Core 0.7.0 (September 2012) as a soft fork. As described in BIP34, valid version 2 blocks require a block height parameter in the coinbase. Also described in BIP34 are rules for rejecting certain blocks; based on those rules, Bitcoin Core 0.7.0 and later versions began to reject version 2 blocks without the block height in coinbase at block height 224,412 (March 2013) and began to reject new version 1 blocks three weeks later at block height 227,930.

    We are here at Version 3 blocks will be introduced when sufficient numbers of miners switch to using Bitcoin Core 0.10.0 and other versions that create version 3 blocks. As described in draft BIP66, this soft fork change requires strict DER encoding for all ECDSA signatures used in transactions appearing in version 3 or later blocks. Transactions that do not use strict DER encoding have been non-standard since Bitcoin Core 0.8.0.

    Version 4 blocks will likely be introduced in the near-future as specified in draft BIP62. Possible changes include:

        Reject version 4 blocks that include any version 2 transactions that don’t adhere to any of the version 2 transaction rules. These rules are not yet described in this documentation; see BIP62 for details.

        A soft fork rollout of version 4 blocks identical to the rollout used for version 3 blocks (described briefly in BIP62 and in more detail in BIP34).

https://bitcoin.org/en/developer-reference#block-headers
Make sure to stay up to date and if mining make sure your mining pool stays up to date.
For what i read this effects you if could get invalid transactions that look "real" because they were considered "real" by "outdated" software. (wallets not update with latest QT) This could be bad in a business transaction say you sent someone money and they said it was invalid bad situation.

If your mining you could loss a great portion of blocks which were mined if your pool is on the wrong side or mining the wrong version. Meaning your blocks mined could be nullified. It helps if you have an up-to-date qt wallet to know if those are the blocks from the wrong version but you still loose those blocks meaning pressure your pool to upgrade or switch to one that did.

Thank you forrestv for keeping an eye out for P2Pool and continuing to support development

[Sitarow]

Bitcoin version 0.2 is here!

Download links:
http://sourceforge.net/projects/bitcoin/files/Bitcoin/bitcoin-0.2.0-win32-setup.exe/download
http://sourceforge.net/projects/bitcoin/files/Bitcoin/bitcoin-0.2.0-win32.zip/download
http://sourceforge.net/projects/bitcoin/files/Bitcoin/bitcoin-0.2.0-linux.tar.gz/download

New Features

Martti Malmi
 - Minimize to system tray option
 - Autostart on boot option so you can keep it running in the background automatically
 - New options dialog layout for future expansion
 - Setup program for Windows
 - Linux version (tested on Ubuntu)
Satoshi Nakamoto
 - Multi-processor support for coin generation
 - Proxy support for use with TOR
 - Fixed some slowdowns in the initial block download

Major thanks to Martti Malmi (sirius-m) for all his coding work and for hosting the new site and this forum, and New Liberty Standard for his help with testing the Linux version.

Major thanks was once given to those coding, it may seem today (5+ years on) with all the uncertainty this work has become a thankless endeavor.

Lets not forget the principles of what bitcoin is.

[QuestionAuthority]

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.

You're right. I won't use anything but an SPV for everyday use. Soon there will come a time when I won't download the full block chain anymore (that time is almost here). I turn on my desktop computer maybe every few days and use it for a couple of hours. My desktop hasn't caught up with the current block in the last two or three times I've turned it on because I wasn't on it long enough. iPads and phones are making my desktop obsolete. I haven't used anything other than a phone to access this forum in over a year.

[sloopy]

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

Slush isn't listed as one of the "trusted" pools. Why?

[Amitabh S]

Here is some more info on BIP66 from a mailing list that I found useful:

http://sourceforge.net/p/bitcoin/mailman/message/34199290/

[anderson00673]

Woah, glad I checked in the forums this morning.  Thanks so much for the heads up!

[NorrisK]

Woah, glad I checked in the forums this morning.  Thanks so much for the heads up!

This forum is still one of the best places for getting fast heads up on stuff like this! Also good that they highlight it at the top of the forums.

[Syke]

I'm looking forward to the day when mining income is derived mostly from including transactions. Miners/pools who create empty blocks on purpose are bad for the blockchain.

[Sakarias-Corporation]

I'm looking forward to the day when mining income is derived mostly from including transactions. Miners/pools who create empty blocks on purpose are bad for the blockchain.

Won't that be tons of years into the future ?

[iCEBREAKER]

I'm looking forward to the day when mining income is derived mostly from including transactions. Miners/pools who create empty blocks on purpose are bad for the blockchain.

By creating problematic 0tx blocks (and reminding us that scaling Bitcoin isn't as simple as bloating a sanity-check constant), miners force the devs to invent better solutions.  Et voilà, anti-fragile!

[Scamc0p]

So the Chines miners are creating invalid blocks but smart phone wallets and even website wallets can't tell they are invalid?

Knew the chins would ruin this somehow. Over doing it on mining now, like spoiled fruit.

[Scamc0p]

Woah, glad I checked in the forums this morning.  Thanks so much for the heads up!

This forum is still one of the best places for getting fast heads up on stuff like this! Also good that they highlight it at the top of the forums.

Noticed that today too. But what would happen if forum goes down like last month? That is the reason I had to change my password because of this notice(highlighted) at the top too.

[RealBitcoin]

Did blockchain.info updated their stuff? If not then please PM me when they do i need to send a transaction, but i`m scared to do it at the moment.

Also do bitcoin in safe storage compromized? I mean do i have to create a new address, are private keys compromized because of this?

[wpalczynski]

Did blockchain.info updated their stuff? If not then please PM me when they do i need to send a transaction, but i`m scared to do it at the moment.

Also do bitcoin in safe storage compromized? I mean do i have to create a new address, are private keys compromized because of this?

Its safe to send.  If anything its the receiver that needs to wait for 30+ confirmations to ensure that he will retain the bitcoin.

[Amitabh S]

I'm looking forward to the day when mining income is derived mostly from including transactions. Miners/pools who create empty blocks on purpose are bad for the blockchain.

I'm looking forward to the day when income can be made by running a full node.

[RealBitcoin]

Did blockchain.info updated their stuff? If not then please PM me when they do i need to send a transaction, but i`m scared to do it at the moment.

Also do bitcoin in safe storage compromized? I mean do i have to create a new address, are private keys compromized because of this?

Its safe to send.  If anything its the receiver that needs to wait for 30+ confirmations to ensure that he will retain the bitcoin.

Only the guy who controls the private keys of the address can double spend right?

Also excuse me for my noobness, but i`m not a tech person. How is it safe to send when blockchain.info hasnt updated their client, what if they send that bitcoin to the wrong blockchain, those coins are lost then arent they? 

[scarsbergholden]

so the spilt of fork is happening today, good away to celebrate independes day well for those in the U.S actually, it would be so nice to actually make some income from a node one day yea, time frame wise a decade .

[Sakarias-Corporation]

How long until we only need to wait for 1-6 Confirmations instead of 30 ? (i'm using a Trezor)

[turvarya]

Did blockchain.info updated their stuff? If not then please PM me when they do i need to send a transaction, but i`m scared to do it at the moment.

Also do bitcoin in safe storage compromized? I mean do i have to create a new address, are private keys compromized because of this?

Its safe to send.  If anything its the receiver that needs to wait for 30+ confirmations to ensure that he will retain the bitcoin.

Only the guy who controls the private keys of the address can double spend right?

Also excuse me for my noobness, but i`m not a tech person. How is it safe to send when blockchain.info hasnt updated their client, what if they send that bitcoin to the wrong blockchain, those coins are lost then arent they? 

No, they stay in the addresses they were sent from since the transaction is invalid.