Blockchain split of 4 July 2015

[goku90504]

If your running any web based wallet I would not trust any incoming transactions with less then 20 confirmations. Because they could be orphaned by the network. Chines farms are spitting out a lot of trash these days in the hope they will make more money. They don't have the bandwidth to send out even 1mb blocks.

what is Chines farms do you mean Chinese?

[goku90504]

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 quite it first eliminates chains with invalid blocks by the rules of the current program then selects the one with the most work done of the reaming options if there is more than one at that point

[goku90504]

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

sort of their work is invalidated if they build on a bad block meaning for that case it counts as 0 nada zip zilch if they build on a good block then there is no way to tell the difference between spv mining and regular mining from the outside

[goku90504]

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?

no no no there is no stolen information the problems are all for people receiving BTC on older or light security wallets and it doesn't even say that it compromises the wallet it might compromise the individual transaction you received

[goku90504]

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 the coins are not a physical object that land on one side of the other that can be lost when one side takes the dump

they are a logical object the chain only records change in ownership so if its sent to the wrong chain the coin comes back to the sender when that chain takes a dump

[S4VV4S]

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?

no no no there is no stolen information the problems are all for people receiving BTC on older or light security wallets and it doesn't even say that it compromises the wallet it might compromise the individual transaction you received

I am a Bitcoin Core user myself, never needed something "lighter", however I need to ask: Do (any) SPV wallets have an alert system similar to Bitcoin Core to warn users?
And if not, then why not?

Also, edit all your posts in one, otherwise you might get banned by a mod.
Just a heads up

[SebastianJu]

Is something up today also....?

I made two outgoing transactions some two hours ago, and not a single confirmation. Here's one of them https://blockchain.info/tx/a7605fd21983365f62eee7bc547f4d25c4dfdb7e172866d639665a883439a587

As you can see from Blockchain.info - their is a stress test going on - most blocks are close to 1MB in size.  You put only 0.0001 BTC as fees - so just wait until your cheap transaction gets selected by the miners...
 

These stress tests are annoying. They will proceed until they showed what they wanted to show it seems.

[S4VV4S]

Is something up today also....?

I made two outgoing transactions some two hours ago, and not a single confirmation. Here's one of them https://blockchain.info/tx/a7605fd21983365f62eee7bc547f4d25c4dfdb7e172866d639665a883439a587

As you can see from Blockchain.info - their is a stress test going on - most blocks are close to 1MB in size.  You put only 0.0001 BTC as fees - so just wait until your cheap transaction gets selected by the miners...
 

These stress tests are annoying. They will proceed until they showed what they wanted to show it seems.

Yes, but as mentioned before they are useful as to know how much the network can handle.
Obviously it needs more stressing than that

But it's good to know the "limits".
Don't you think?

On another note, I think the "fork of July" was more stressing than the stress test.

[SebastianJu]

Is something up today also....?

I made two outgoing transactions some two hours ago, and not a single confirmation. Here's one of them https://blockchain.info/tx/a7605fd21983365f62eee7bc547f4d25c4dfdb7e172866d639665a883439a587

As you can see from Blockchain.info - their is a stress test going on - most blocks are close to 1MB in size.  You put only 0.0001 BTC as fees - so just wait until your cheap transaction gets selected by the miners...
 

These stress tests are annoying. They will proceed until they showed what they wanted to show it seems.

Yes, but as mentioned before they are useful as to know how much the network can handle.
Obviously it needs more stressing than that

But it's good to know the "limits".
Don't you think?

On another note, I think the "fork of July" was more stressing than the stress test.

Im not so sure if the fork was more stressing since there were no real bad results from it. I guess most bitcoiners didnt even notice the fork.

Though the stresstest holds off the innerts of a currency. The free flow. I think its an interesting thing happening but they test it on THE currency. Not on testnet or something. (Yeah, testnet is not far enough developed.)

[relativo]

Be careful

[Bonio]

Why is this taking so long to resolve?

Surely it is in the mining pools interest to fall into line? Or is there something more sinister going on?

Re stress testing I suppose it needs to be done isnt bitcoin still classed as beta or am I missing the point?

[turvarya]

Why is this taking so long to resolve?

Surely it is in the mining pools interest to fall into line? Or is there something more sinister going on?

Re stress testing I suppose it needs to be done isnt bitcoin still classed as beta or am I missing the point?

It actually was resolved pretty fast. (6 blocks ~ 1h)

I guess the news at the top of the forum, is just a reminder that you should update your client.
Theoretically this could happen again(I highlty doubt it, since pools/miners already lost money) and the only prevention is to use a up-to-date client(or connect to an up-to-date node)

[Bonio]

Ah right thanks for the info, I just presumed as it was on the forum and still mentioned at Redit that it was ongoing 

[turvarya]

Ah right thanks for the info, I just presumed as it was on the forum and still mentioned at Redit that it was ongoing 

Could you give me a link to Reddit, where people claiming, that it is still ongoing(I am hardly ever on Reddit, I don't even have an account there)?
Maybe I am missing something.

[Amitabh S]

Why is this taking so long to resolve?

Surely it is in the mining pools interest to fall into line? Or is there something more sinister going on?

Re stress testing I suppose it needs to be done isnt bitcoin still classed as beta or am I missing the point?

It actually was resolved pretty fast. (6 blocks ~ 1h)

I guess the news at the top of the forum, is just a reminder that you should update your client.
Theoretically this could happen again(I highlty doubt it, since pools/miners already lost money) and the only prevention is to use a up-to-date client(or connect to an up-to-date node)

It is clearly not resolved. Look at the forum header and you will see. Things are not "back to normal" if you have to wait for ~30 confirmation on many clients. This is ongoing as of now until the above warning is removed.

[RealBitcoin]

Why is this taking so long to resolve?

Surely it is in the mining pools interest to fall into line? Or is there something more sinister going on?

Re stress testing I suppose it needs to be done isnt bitcoin still classed as beta or am I missing the point?

It actually was resolved pretty fast. (6 blocks ~ 1h)

I guess the news at the top of the forum, is just a reminder that you should update your client.
Theoretically this could happen again(I highlty doubt it, since pools/miners already lost money) and the only prevention is to use a up-to-date client(or connect to an up-to-date node)

It is clearly not resolved. Look at the forum header and you will see. Things are not "back to normal" if you have to wait for ~30 confirmation on many clients. This is ongoing as of now until the above warning is removed.

Ok but this only is concerning to p2p transactions isnt it?

I mean if i get bitcoins from a trusted source, then what does it matter if they have 3 confirm or 30 confirm. For example if i buy bitcoin from coinbase, then obviously then wont double spend me neither with 2 confirm nor with 10 or 30 confirm.

This is only if i am doing business with a stranger right? So if i trade face to face with a stranger on the streets, for example 1 kilogram of lemons in exchange for 0.05 BTC, then if i go away after 10 confirm, he can still double-cross me and double spend the TX.

So i guess this entire "crisis" is only concerning to face-2-face trading and transactions, but not if you get your coins from trusted source right?

[turvarya]

Why is this taking so long to resolve?

Surely it is in the mining pools interest to fall into line? Or is there something more sinister going on?

Re stress testing I suppose it needs to be done isnt bitcoin still classed as beta or am I missing the point?

It actually was resolved pretty fast. (6 blocks ~ 1h)

I guess the news at the top of the forum, is just a reminder that you should update your client.
Theoretically this could happen again(I highlty doubt it, since pools/miners already lost money) and the only prevention is to use a up-to-date client(or connect to an up-to-date node)

It is clearly not resolved. Look at the forum header and you will see. Things are not "back to normal" if you have to wait for ~30 confirmation on many clients. This is ongoing as of now until the above warning is removed.

Sorry, for the misinformation. Seems like there was another split according to: https://bitcoin.org/en/alert/2015-07-04-spv-mining
So, miners are stupid enough to still lose money. Sorry, I assumed, they were smarter.

@RealBitcoin
There is no reported double-spend.
From the way, I understand Bitcoin a double spend is still very hard to execute. So, no lemon merchant has the resources to do that.
And yes, I would trust coinbase.

[RealBitcoin]

Why is this taking so long to resolve?

Surely it is in the mining pools interest to fall into line? Or is there something more sinister going on?

Re stress testing I suppose it needs to be done isnt bitcoin still classed as beta or am I missing the point?

It actually was resolved pretty fast. (6 blocks ~ 1h)

I guess the news at the top of the forum, is just a reminder that you should update your client.
Theoretically this could happen again(I highlty doubt it, since pools/miners already lost money) and the only prevention is to use a up-to-date client(or connect to an up-to-date node)

It is clearly not resolved. Look at the forum header and you will see. Things are not "back to normal" if you have to wait for ~30 confirmation on many clients. This is ongoing as of now until the above warning is removed.

Sorry, for the misinformation. Seems like there was another split according to: https://bitcoin.org/en/alert/2015-07-04-spv-mining
So, miners are stupid enough to still lose money. Sorry, I assumed, they were smarter.

@RealBitcoin
There is no reported double-spend.
From the way, I understand Bitcoin a double spend is still very hard to execute. So, no lemon merchant has the resources to do that.
And yes, I would trust coinbase.

Yes its obvious that its not the merchant is the one that will scam people here. But it was a bit exxagerated in my view, because nothing is affected except trading with strangers.

So if the 99% of the bitcoin users only use trustable companies to trade bitcoin with then nothing happens. Of course when you do an escrow deal or similar with a stranger, then you need to wait that 30 confirm, but other than that, this crisis doesnt look serious at all.

I hope that the current core client is stable, i`ll wait a few more weeks until i upgrade

[SebastianJu]

Why is this taking so long to resolve?

Surely it is in the mining pools interest to fall into line? Or is there something more sinister going on?

Re stress testing I suppose it needs to be done isnt bitcoin still classed as beta or am I missing the point?

It actually was resolved pretty fast. (6 blocks ~ 1h)

I guess the news at the top of the forum, is just a reminder that you should update your client.
Theoretically this could happen again(I highlty doubt it, since pools/miners already lost money) and the only prevention is to use a up-to-date client(or connect to an up-to-date node)

It is clearly not resolved. Look at the forum header and you will see. Things are not "back to normal" if you have to wait for ~30 confirmation on many clients. This is ongoing as of now until the above warning is removed.

Sorry, for the misinformation. Seems like there was another split according to: https://bitcoin.org/en/alert/2015-07-04-spv-mining
So, miners are stupid enough to still lose money. Sorry, I assumed, they were smarter.

So this happened twice now in a row? Oo

When what is said is correct in this thread then couldnt that be used to attack bitcoin and lower the price of bitcoin? I mean presenting wrong hashes to these pools and letting them create a fork? I guess there is some failsaife built in as to which pools they watch but most probably they watch small ones too and someone could decide that he could earn some coins by shorting them with leverage and then starting the next fork?

[Darkmatter12]

Is blockchain web wallet safe?