Blockchain split of 4 July 2015

[Quantus]

Whats really fucked up is that these chinese miners don't even want to use 1MB blocks and people are pushing for a 8MB hard fork.
Upping the max block size will not force these large pools into including more transactions, it could in fact have the opposite affect.

[1715387975]

1715387975

[1715387975]

1715387975

[RealMalatesta]

Anyone on SPV wallet question?

ARE SPV wallets (i.e. Multibit) safe?

Using anything other than official Bitcoin-Qt wallet (full node) is playing with fire. For the sake of saving 40GB of HDD space and to have a bit faster syncing you have massively increased a chance for all sort of troubles and you are actualy not contributing to network at all, just draining resources off of it and using up others' connection slots. As far as I know, SPV wallets are not relaying transactions or blocks, they are just like people on Torrent who download stuff but not share anything.

SPV wallets were Satoshi's idea. He knew they would be needed by people with low spec computers and metered internet connections. People have complained the Bitcoin core wallet can take a week to sync on a low power computer with a slow connection. They say if anything goes wrong whole it's syncing and the database gets corrupted you have to start the whole process again. My computer is too low power and has too little free memory to consider using the Bitcoin core wallet.

Not everyone has the choice to use the Bitcoin core wallet, some people have no option but to use SPV wallets.

"Here I have 100,000 USD and I'll put them at insecure and problematic bank because I have no money for better one".  

Not everybody has 100'000 USD on its wallet (I wish I had, though). Especially if you want to have some petty money on the laptop, mobile or tablet, SPV wallets are pretty handy. I, for example, have one mobile phone which I use about five times a year. SPV is best for it...

[JerryCurlzzz]

Just saw the warning. Glad I did. I use Electrum for my hot wallet. (Not that I keep much in it anyway)

Is there any news on this? I've looked through the end of the thread -- this is where the warning points -- and it appears unresolved. Am I crazy or shouldn't this be an easy fix for these pools?

[rich93]

Anyone on SPV wallet question?

ARE SPV wallets (i.e. Multibit) safe?

Using anything other than official Bitcoin-Qt wallet (full node) is playing with fire. For the sake of saving 40GB of HDD space and to have a bit faster syncing you have massively increased a chance for all sort of troubles and you are actualy not contributing to network at all, just draining resources off of it and using up others' connection slots. As far as I know, SPV wallets are not relaying transactions or blocks, they are just like people on Torrent who download stuff but not share anything.

SPV wallets were Satoshi's idea. He knew they would be needed by people with low spec computers and metered internet connections. People have complained the Bitcoin core wallet can take a week to sync on a low power computer with a slow connection. They say if anything goes wrong whole it's syncing and the database gets corrupted you have to start the whole process again. My computer is too low power and has too little free memory to consider using the Bitcoin core wallet.

Not everyone has the choice to use the Bitcoin core wallet, some people have no option but to use SPV wallets.

"Here I have 100,000 USD and I'll put them at insecure and problematic bank because I have no money for better one".  

Not everybody has 100'000 USD on its wallet (I wish I had, though). Especially if you want to have some petty money on the laptop, mobile or tablet, SPV wallets are pretty handy. I, for example, have one mobile phone which I use about five times a year. SPV is best for it...

There have been attempts to get the unbanked in third world countries to use Bitcoin. they would be lucky if they could afford the most basic Android phone there is. SPV wallets are the only option for them. You cannot tell them they should only use Bitcoin core because they probably don't own computers. What we might consider petty money on a mobile phone might be a lot of money to them.

[JorgeStolfi]

I love how the problem was essentially fixed by the time I found this thread. The tech community is so efficient

It was solved promptly because Greg Maxwell (@nullc) and perhaps other devs were awake and carefully watching the blockchain for the BIP66 activation.  They spotted the problem right away and promptly warned the SPV miners.  

Had the devs been sleeping or busy at the time, the accident would have been nastier.

[favdesu]

Just saw the warning. Glad I did. I use Electrum for my hot wallet. (Not that I keep much in it anyway)

Is there any news on this? I've looked through the end of the thread -- this is where the warning points -- and it appears unresolved. Am I crazy or shouldn't this be an easy fix for these pools?

electrum uses nodes. go to console and check the status "This node is running bitcoind 0.10.0 with no scheduled restarts." < means you're good to go

[JorgeStolfi]

Did anybody else notice that (at the time of writing this) the 3 biggest pools have exactly 51% of the total hashrate between them?
I do not think it is relevant. Just an observation.

The top 4-5 Chinese pools have a lot more than 50%.

[btc_enigma]

Can someone explain why 0.9 bitcoind are not safe to use ? Won't they also catch up to the longest chain later ?

[RealMalatesta]

Anyone on SPV wallet question?

ARE SPV wallets (i.e. Multibit) safe?

Using anything other than official Bitcoin-Qt wallet (full node) is playing with fire. For the sake of saving 40GB of HDD space and to have a bit faster syncing you have massively increased a chance for all sort of troubles and you are actualy not contributing to network at all, just draining resources off of it and using up others' connection slots. As far as I know, SPV wallets are not relaying transactions or blocks, they are just like people on Torrent who download stuff but not share anything.

SPV wallets were Satoshi's idea. He knew they would be needed by people with low spec computers and metered internet connections. People have complained the Bitcoin core wallet can take a week to sync on a low power computer with a slow connection. They say if anything goes wrong whole it's syncing and the database gets corrupted you have to start the whole process again. My computer is too low power and has too little free memory to consider using the Bitcoin core wallet.

Not everyone has the choice to use the Bitcoin core wallet, some people have no option but to use SPV wallets.

"Here I have 100,000 USD and I'll put them at insecure and problematic bank because I have no money for better one".  

Not everybody has 100'000 USD on its wallet (I wish I had, though). Especially if you want to have some petty money on the laptop, mobile or tablet, SPV wallets are pretty handy. I, for example, have one mobile phone which I use about five times a year. SPV is best for it...

There have been attempts to get the unbanked in third world countries to use Bitcoin. they would be lucky if they could afford the most basic Android phone there is. SPV wallets are the only option for them. You cannot tell them they should only use Bitcoin core because they probably don't own computers. What we might consider petty money on a mobile phone might be a lot of money to them.

I absolutely agree. I run a couple of core wallets and a node,, though, but I just have to look at my family and see that they want - and need - a quicker solution which makes it easy for them. Here we are again discussing mass adaption...

[SISAR]

Anyone on SPV wallet question?

ARE SPV wallets (i.e. Multibit) safe?

Using anything other than official Bitcoin-Qt wallet (full node) is playing with fire. For the sake of saving 40GB of HDD space and to have a bit faster syncing you have massively increased a chance for all sort of troubles and you are actualy not contributing to network at all, just draining resources off of it and using up others' connection slots. As far as I know, SPV wallets are not relaying transactions or blocks, they are just like people on Torrent who download stuff but not share anything.

SPV wallets were Satoshi's idea. He knew they would be needed by people with low spec computers and metered internet connections. People have complained the Bitcoin core wallet can take a week to sync on a low power computer with a slow connection. They say if anything goes wrong whole it's syncing and the database gets corrupted you have to start the whole process again. My computer is too low power and has too little free memory to consider using the Bitcoin core wallet.

Not everyone has the choice to use the Bitcoin core wallet, some people have no option but to use SPV wallets.

"Here I have 100,000 USD and I'll put them at insecure and problematic bank because I have no money for better one".  

Not everybody has 100'000 USD on its wallet (I wish I had, though). Especially if you want to have some petty money on the laptop, mobile or tablet, SPV wallets are pretty handy. I, for example, have one mobile phone which I use about five times a year. SPV is best for it...

Well, this whole thread and many others are proof SPV wallets suck balls.

[turvarya]

Can someone explain why 0.9 bitcoind are not safe to use ? Won't they also catch up to the longest chain later ?

They allow invalid blocks.
So, if you have 2 chains one with invalid blocks and one without. Bitcoin Core 0.9 would chose the longest block as the right one. Bitcoin Core 0.10.2 would just ignore the chain with the invalid blocks.

[Meuh6879]

If PEOPLE use Bitcoin Core 0.10.2 or 0.11.0 RC3, they don't have problem.

On bottom, the complet LOG of the blockversion error (v2) ... and the correction of the network (bitcoin !) after this (v3) with 12 blocks in row to invalidate the v2 ORPHAN blocks.

No problem here, the blockchain is true ... and Bitcoin Core do the job.

Code:

2015-07-04 01:56:19 ERROR: ContextualCheckBlockHeader : rejected nVersion=2 block
2015-07-04 01:56:19 ERROR: invalid header received
2015-07-04 01:56:19 ProcessMessages(headers, 82 bytes) FAILED peer=191
2015-07-04 01:56:20 ERROR: ContextualCheckBlockHeader : rejected nVersion=2 block
2015-07-04 01:56:20 ERROR: ProcessNewBlock: AcceptBlock FAILED

2015-07-04 01:59:50 UpdateTip: new best=000000000000000002279afdc82b23535938b34a0cb4aaa04dcb85dc1768608e  height=363726  log2_work=83.025486  tx=74420964  date=2015-07-04 01:59:05 progress=0.999999  cache=266.4MiB(114099tx)
2015-07-04 02:03:30 UpdateTip: new best=000000000000000014295aaf3ac51264b1710645e3035b288a40633b5a9424a5  height=363727  log2_work=83.025517  tx=74421062  date=2015-07-04 02:02:52 progress=0.999999  cache=266.5MiB(114242tx)
2015-07-04 02:05:19 UpdateTip: new best=000000000000000015a904dd0cf81bfb13b0bdfe65a30caafd9c85d9c5b1b318  height=363728  log2_work=83.025548  tx=74421355  date=2015-07-04 02:04:22 progress=0.999999  cache=266.6MiB(114406tx)
2015-07-04 02:05:54 UpdateTip: new best=000000000000000011e40c5deb1a1e3438b350ea3db3fa2dedd285db9650a6e6  height=363729  log2_work=83.025579  tx=74421408  date=2015-07-04 02:05:13 progress=0.999999  cache=266.7MiB(114466tx)
2015-07-04 02:07:02 ERROR: AcceptToMemoryPool: inputs already spent
2015-07-04 02:08:06 UpdateTip: new best=000000000000000006a320d752b46b532ec0f3f815c5dae467aff5715a6e579e  height=363730  log2_work=83.02561  tx=74421543  date=2015-07-04 02:07:38 progress=1.000000  cache=267.0MiB(114598tx)

2015-07-04 02:09:32 ERROR: ContextualCheckBlockHeader : rejected nVersion=2 block
2015-07-04 02:09:32 ERROR: invalid header received
2015-07-04 02:09:32 ProcessMessages(headers, 82 bytes) FAILED peer=191
2015-07-04 02:09:33 ERROR: ContextualCheckBlockHeader : rejected nVersion=2 block
2015-07-04 02:09:33 ERROR: ProcessNewBlock: AcceptBlock FAILED
2015-07-04 02:23:10 ERROR: ContextualCheckBlockHeader : rejected nVersion=2 block
2015-07-04 02:23:10 ERROR: invalid header received
2015-07-04 02:23:10 ProcessMessages(headers, 163 bytes) FAILED peer=191
2015-07-04 02:23:10 ERROR: AcceptBlockHeader: prev block not found
2015-07-04 02:23:10 ERROR: ProcessNewBlock: AcceptBlock FAILED

2015-07-04 02:23:10 Misbehaving: 86.125.113.54:8333 (0 -> 10)
2015-07-04 02:46:56 UpdateTip: new best=00000000000000000c28e23330c29046f19e817fe8fe039f4044b2b2882aef53  height=363731  log2_work=83.025641  tx=74423426  date=2015-07-04 02:46:13 progress=0.999999  cache=268.7MiB(116337tx)

2015-07-04 02:49:14 ERROR: ContextualCheckBlockHeader : rejected nVersion=2 block
2015-07-04 02:49:14 ERROR: invalid header received
2015-07-04 02:49:14 ProcessMessages(headers, 244 bytes) FAILED peer=191
2015-07-04 02:49:14 ERROR: AcceptBlockHeader: prev block not found
2015-07-04 02:49:14 ERROR: ProcessNewBlock: AcceptBlock FAILED

2015-07-04 02:49:14 Misbehaving: 86.125.113.54:8333 (10 -> 20)
2015-07-04 02:49:34 UpdateTip: new best=00000000000000001242e0216eb113f1c50e4c18ecfbc8b9c0224ec82ec391d6  height=363732  log2_work=83.025672  tx=74423842  date=2015-07-04 02:48:53 progress=0.999999  cache=268.7MiB(116505tx)

2015-07-04 02:52:22 ERROR: ContextualCheckBlockHeader : rejected nVersion=2 block
2015-07-04 02:52:22 ERROR: invalid header received
2015-07-04 02:52:22 ProcessMessages(headers, 325 bytes) FAILED peer=191
2015-07-04 02:52:22 ERROR: AcceptBlockHeader: prev block not found
2015-07-04 02:52:22 ERROR: ProcessNewBlock: AcceptBlock FAILED
2015-07-04 02:52:22 Misbehaving: 86.125.113.54:8333 (20 -> 30)
2015-07-04 02:57:00 ERROR: ContextualCheckBlockHeader : rejected nVersion=2 block
2015-07-04 02:57:00 ERROR: invalid header received
2015-07-04 02:57:00 ProcessMessages(headers, 406 bytes) FAILED peer=191
2015-07-04 02:57:00 ERROR: AcceptBlockHeader: prev block not found
2015-07-04 02:57:00 ERROR: ProcessNewBlock: AcceptBlock FAILED
2015-07-04 02:57:00 Misbehaving: 86.125.113.54:8333 (30 -> 40)
2015-07-04 03:06:03 ERROR: ContextualCheckBlockHeader : rejected nVersion=2 block
2015-07-04 03:06:03 ERROR: invalid header received
2015-07-04 03:06:03 ProcessMessages(headers, 487 bytes) FAILED peer=191
2015-07-04 03:06:03 ERROR: AcceptBlockHeader: prev block not found
2015-07-04 03:06:03 ERROR: ProcessNewBlock: AcceptBlock FAILED

2015-07-04 03:06:03 Misbehaving: 86.125.113.54:8333 (40 -> 50)
2015-07-04 03:17:14 receive version message: /UMDCoinscope:0.0/: version 70002, blocks=346294, us=xxx, peer=215
2015-07-04 03:30:16 UpdateTip: new best=000000000000000006355c07b36bac6990cce128610d674851096b8c9745a3ee  height=363733  log2_work=83.025703  tx=74425504  date=2015-07-04 03:29:43 progress=0.999999  cache=272.4MiB(118614tx)
2015-07-04 03:37:53 UpdateTip: new best=000000000000000015358ae1131062fa83081797bb4cec4df0b1e5a5d01c1936  height=363734  log2_work=83.025734  tx=74425908  date=2015-07-04 03:37:00 progress=0.999999  cache=272.5MiB(118967tx)
2015-07-04 03:41:03 UpdateTip: new best=00000000000000000695243f6ac9b713bb1faa32c0eab3fc73286a288a44abde  height=363735  log2_work=83.025765  tx=74426076  date=2015-07-04 03:40:39 progress=1.000000  cache=272.5MiB(119124tx)
2015-07-04 03:41:10 ERROR: AcceptToMemoryPool: inputs already spent
2015-07-04 03:42:01 ERROR: AcceptToMemoryPool: inputs already spent
2015-07-04 03:43:10 ERROR: AcceptToMemoryPool: inputs already spent
2015-07-04 03:46:06 UpdateTip: new best=000000000000000003bcf71307c6f8f4a7caa7b9b4a3bef3ffbdfb1f0284c733  height=363736  log2_work=83.025797  tx=74426309  date=2015-07-04 03:45:17 progress=0.999999  cache=272.6MiB(119392tx)
2015-07-04 03:49:22 UpdateTip: new best=0000000000000000014e7c854125e10dd123271359b2c006b7b291bc23b8ad15  height=363737  log2_work=83.025828  tx=74426475  date=2015-07-04 03:48:50 progress=1.000000  cache=272.6MiB(119512tx)
2015-07-04 03:55:05 UpdateTip: new best=000000000000000010b61f1f1a8e1e465ad7fd5515aaff03914dd2a44ead8f94  height=363738  log2_work=83.025859  tx=74426795  date=2015-07-04 03:54:43 progress=1.000000  cache=275.0MiB(120136tx)
2015-07-04 04:02:53 UpdateTip: new best=00000000000000000e605e9bd17bea7fbb3ae3a7796d41730e0b2d3e7053a1ac  height=363739  log2_work=83.02589  tx=74426998  date=2015-07-04 04:01:51 progress=0.999999  cache=275.3MiB(120523tx)
2015-07-04 04:09:03 UpdateTip: new best=000000000000000008f4a0f3177497369268c9b51968b6514d8b1df592d84ed0  height=363740  log2_work=83.025921  tx=74427753  date=2015-07-04 04:08:44 progress=1.000000  cache=275.7MiB(120876tx)
2015-07-04 04:09:36 UpdateTip: new best=00000000000000000b9d7006b0a893302e02becbc2faf78e79e000bb51721db0  height=363741  log2_work=83.025952  tx=74427754  date=2015-07-04 04:08:56 progress=0.999999  cache=275.7MiB(120890tx)
2015-07-04 04:26:41 UpdateTip: new best=00000000000000000095b61b02313f2be6a9d0d21684421caaa032506a38bd5f  height=363742  log2_work=83.025983  tx=74428839  date=2015-07-04 04:25:41 progress=0.999999  cache=288.5MiB(122413tx)
2015-07-04 04:33:10 UpdateTip: new best=00000000000000000d0d362a2fbb3c3e7c8c748cc169ea90663cd18a354bc09b  height=363743  log2_work=83.026014  tx=74429192  date=2015-07-04 04:32:52 progress=1.000000  cache=289.3MiB(122720tx)
2015-07-04 04:37:33 UpdateTip: new best=0000000000000000090128120630af662602c48ca979810d291dad2134e156da  height=363744  log2_work=83.026045  tx=74429410  date=2015-07-04 04:37:06 progress=1.000000  cache=289.5MiB(122905tx)
2015-07-04 04:37:33 ERROR: AcceptToMemoryPool: inputs already spent
2015-07-04 04:54:46 UpdateTip: new best=00000000000000000fa43f76ae85695da67a762493d746aed1468dfe222b476e  height=363745  log2_work=83.026076  tx=74430429  date=2015-07-04 04:54:38 progress=1.000000  cache=291.0MiB(123749tx)
2015-07-04 04:58:57 UpdateTip: new best=0000000000000000052cf224477d486438db79921dda61f5d4a83d10226e3229  height=363746  log2_work=83.026107  tx=74430668  date=2015-07-04 04:58:41 progress=1.000000  cache=291.3MiB(123901tx)
2015-07-04 05:01:53 UpdateTip: new best=0000000000000000076dd13c40bc1d505b95401fcad328e4c4aac62a4577614f  height=363747  log2_work=83.026138  tx=74430930  date=2015-07-04 05:01:41 progress=1.000000  cache=291.4MiB(124117tx)
2015-07-04 05:01:57 ERROR: AcceptToMemoryPool: inputs already spent
2015-07-04 05:02:21 ERROR: AcceptToMemoryPool: inputs already spent
2015-07-04 05:02:26 ERROR: AcceptToMemoryPool: inputs already spent
2015-07-04 05:02:58 UpdateTip: new best=00000000000000000cd9e62f7724a64bdf6e8955b1545dd8f8413659ab421eb8  height=363748  log2_work=83.02617  tx=74431055  date=2015-07-04 05:02:42 progress=1.000000  cache=291.4MiB(124210tx)
2015-07-04 05:03:57 ERROR: AcceptToMemoryPool: inputs already spent

[Sorros]

Just saw the warning. Glad I did. I use Electrum for my hot wallet. (Not that I keep much in it anyway)

Is there any news on this? I've looked through the end of the thread -- this is where the warning points -- and it appears unresolved. Am I crazy or shouldn't this be an easy fix for these pools?

electrum uses nodes. go to console and check the status "This node is running bitcoind 0.10.0 with no scheduled restarts." < means you're good to go

Which is command for status check?

[cakir]

This situation looks like my "catastrophe scenario" on Bitcoin Network. https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1087583
There were 2 major chains (1 was legit, the other one wasn't by Chinese miners).

For now "miners" integrated into Main chain, But what would happen if they insisted on their chain?

[SISAR]

Can someone explain why 0.9 bitcoind are not safe to use ? Won't they also catch up to the longest chain later ?

They allow invalid blocks.
So, if you have 2 chains one with invalid blocks and one without. Bitcoin Core 0.9 would chose the longest block as the right one. Bitcoin Core 0.10.2 would just ignore the chain with the invalid blocks.

Bitcoin always choses blockchain with the most work done (sum of all hashes that were used to create blocks, since genesis block) which is not neccessarily the longest blockchain.

[Herbert2020]

Just saw the warning. Glad I did. I use Electrum for my hot wallet. (Not that I keep much in it anyway)

Is there any news on this? I've looked through the end of the thread -- this is where the warning points -- and it appears unresolved. Am I crazy or shouldn't this be an easy fix for these pools?

electrum uses nodes. go to console and check the status "This node is running bitcoind 0.10.0 with no scheduled restarts." < means you're good to go

Which is command for status check?

i don't think there is any command.
on the last tab (console) some of the nodes mention what version of bitcoind they are using. i think that is enough.

EDIT:
for example this one: "erbium1.sytes.net" says "bitcoind 0.10.0 (full node)"

[turvarya]

Can someone explain why 0.9 bitcoind are not safe to use ? Won't they also catch up to the longest chain later ?

They allow invalid blocks.
So, if you have 2 chains one with invalid blocks and one without. Bitcoin Core 0.9 would chose the longest block as the right one. Bitcoin Core 0.10.2 would just ignore the chain with the invalid blocks.

Bitcoin always choses blockchain with the most work done (sum of all hashes that were used to create blocks, since genesis block) which is not neccessarily the longest blockchain.

Not true.
Bitcoin chooses the valid blockchain, with the most work in it. Huge difference.

[turvarya]

This situation looks like my "catastrophe scenario" on Bitcoin Network. https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1087583
There were 2 major chains (1 was legit, the other one wasn't by Chinese miners).

For now "miners" integrated into Main chain, But what would happen if they insisted on their chain?

You have to differ between miners and pools. If pools would go rough, the miners would most probably go to another pool. Miners would suffer the most from such a blockchain war, since they have all this expensive hardware, which is worthless without Bitcoin.

[randy8777]

glad i use the latest version of bitcoin core, not sure why people still use older versions as it doesn't require more than 1 minute to update the wallet.

[NUFCrichard]

This situation looks like my "catastrophe scenario" on Bitcoin Network. https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1087583
There were 2 major chains (1 was legit, the other one wasn't by Chinese miners).

For now "miners" integrated into Main chain, But what would happen if they insisted on their chain?

You have to differ between miners and pools. If pools would go rough, the miners would most probably go to another pool. Miners would suffer the most from such a blockchain war, since they have all this expensive hardware, which is worthless without Bitcoin.

It does sound quite a worrying situation that some pools can so easily and accidently go rogue and basically make all transactions questionable.
Imagine if they or someone else decided to try to mess up the network, 30 confirmations is a very long time to wait.

I have updated my qt and will wait a while before using electrum, I won't be spending any BTC until this evening anyway.