Bitcoin Forum
September 25, 2018, 02:29:58 PM *
News: ♦♦ New info! Bitcoin Core users absolutely must upgrade to previously-announced 0.16.3 [Torrent]. All Bitcoin users should temporarily trust confirmations slightly less. More info.
 
   Home   Help Search Donate Login Register  
Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 [6] 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 »
  Print  
Author Topic: Alert: chain fork caused by pre-0.8 clients dealing badly with large blocks  (Read 155098 times)
joecooin
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 363
Merit: 250


View Profile WWW
March 12, 2013, 02:38:14 AM
 #101




Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
1537885798
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1537885798

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1537885798
Reply with quote  #2

1537885798
Report to moderator
1537885798
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1537885798

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1537885798
Reply with quote  #2

1537885798
Report to moderator
1537885798
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1537885798

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1537885798
Reply with quote  #2

1537885798
Report to moderator
nelisky
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1540
Merit: 1000


View Profile
March 12, 2013, 02:38:36 AM
 #102

BTCGuild is switching to 0.7, so the old chain will get a majority hash rate soon.
I've switched to BTCGuild for the moment.  Will switch back to BitMinter once DrHaribo confirms that the pool has reverted to 0.7.

Doc has confirmed, but something wasn't working and he is fixing it, I believe. So it is 0.7 but is currently down.
bitpop
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2366
Merit: 1043


https://keybase.io/bitpop


View Profile WWW
March 12, 2013, 02:38:39 AM
 #103

Why? I want to help. I have a 24/7 server. And I do have a p2pool public node running off it.

will downgrading redownload the entire chain? because wasnt the old db converted?

Just for everyone in the audience: Wallet users do not have to downgrade, this is just for the miners.

For the miners: that's not a bad question. :?

Reputation  |  PGP  |  DigitalOcean  |  TorGuard  |  Ethereum Classic
Bitcoin: 3DSh6AnmvBpDJFUz2mnLirMLmTMcFs9nDm
Bitmessage: BM-2cXN9j8NFT2n1FxDVQ6HQq4D4MZuuaBFyb
whitenight639
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 154
Merit: 100



View Profile
March 12, 2013, 02:39:13 AM
 #104

So let me get this right,

IF we'd all upgrade to .08 then the blocksize restriction would have been lifted, but because not many did we now have a fork and because the 0.7 blockchain is longer we should revert to that until a proper upgrade path to 0.8 is made available?

so is 0.8 inherently flawed, I thought there was a consensus that the blocksize should be lifted? I think this is very poor

 A simple retards guide summing up key points for and against blocksize restriction or lifting should have been stickied in the forum for some time and a poll taken by everybody not just miners, devs and long time posters.

An upgrade should have been built and tested on an isolated blockchain if that is possible,

A announcement about the upcoming availability of the upgrade should have been stickied referring to the poll results and post aforementioned,

A target date and block number should have been specified and downloads of the new client should have been made available along with an "alert£"

Some time before the specified date / block another last chance alert should hav been issued, anyone not upgrading after the date / block should have been left in the dust.


125uWc197UW5kM659m4uwEakxoNHzMKzwz
bitpop
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2366
Merit: 1043


https://keybase.io/bitpop


View Profile WWW
March 12, 2013, 02:39:58 AM
 #105

What defines a miner? Someone solo mining? What about p2pool?
Why aren't wallets effected?

Reputation  |  PGP  |  DigitalOcean  |  TorGuard  |  Ethereum Classic
Bitcoin: 3DSh6AnmvBpDJFUz2mnLirMLmTMcFs9nDm
Bitmessage: BM-2cXN9j8NFT2n1FxDVQ6HQq4D4MZuuaBFyb
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764
Merit: 1002



View Profile
March 12, 2013, 02:39:59 AM
 #106

I made a purchase yesterday through localbitcoins.com before this all went down. I had that transferred to one of my blockchain wallets. It has at this point over 70 confirmations - is this entire transaction safe? I'm very new to this and I think I picked  abad day to buy my first BTC  Undecided

Perfectly safe.

my friend just made his first purchase around 2pm PST today with 0.8.  Is he safe?
etotheipi
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1428
Merit: 1002


Core Armory Developer


View Profile WWW
March 12, 2013, 02:40:59 AM
 #107

The original post lacked info for "regular users".  Here it is:

(1) If you are a "regular user" (not a miner), the best thing is to do nothing and wait a couple hours.
(2) If you are a "regular user", upgrading, downgrading, whining, FUD, etc, will make no difference.  Only miners have an incentive to do anything.  Otherwise, it doesn't matter which version you are running.
(3) Regardless of who you are, your transactions are not dead, your coins are not lost.  They will just temporarily be held up.  If you sent a transaction within the last few hours, it may take a few more hours before it's sorted out.
(4) If you insist on processing transactions right now it's probably best to wait 30+ confirmations.  It's just due diligence though ... an attacker would still need a tremendous amount of mining power, quick thinking, and a victim willing to part with a lot of BTC.
(5) By tomorrow this will be in the past and everything will appear to be normal again.  If you slept through this, you'd never know that anything happend (except for the price drop).

Let me reiterate, your coins are not at risk, your transactions are not lost.  It'll just take some time for the network to "iron itself out."  Everything will be okay.

Founder and CEO of Armory Technologies, Inc.
Armory Bitcoin Wallet: Bringing cold storage to the average user!
Only use Armory software signed by the Armory Offline Signing Key (0x98832223)

Please donate to the Armory project by clicking here!    (or donate directly via 1QBDLYTDFHHZAABYSKGKPWKLSXZWCCJQBX -- yes, it's a real address!)
whitenight639
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 154
Merit: 100



View Profile
March 12, 2013, 02:41:09 AM
 #108

Also can I buy bitcoins on localbitcoins and take advantage of this crazyness without loosing my money??

125uWc197UW5kM659m4uwEakxoNHzMKzwz
Maged
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1260
Merit: 1004


View Profile
March 12, 2013, 02:42:10 AM
 #109

will downgrading redownload the entire chain? because wasnt the old db converted?
Nope, because the developers thought ahead with that point. Your chain will start at the last point you ran a 0.7 or below client.

glitch003
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 219
Merit: 100


View Profile
March 12, 2013, 02:42:51 AM
 #110

This sucks but at least we're working out all these bugs right now (how to handle version upgrades safely, etc) while Bitcoin is still in it's infancy.  Better that this happen now than in the future when more people are utilizing the network and the consequences could be worse.

This is all part of the risk that we incur, and is exactly the reason why everyone says "don't invest more in Bitcoin than you can spare to lose"
dree12
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1246
Merit: 1031



View Profile
March 12, 2013, 02:42:59 AM
 #111

So let me get this right,

IF we'd all upgrade to .08 then the blocksize restriction would have been lifted, but because not many did we now have a fork and because the 0.7 blockchain is longer we should revert to that until a proper upgrade path to 0.8 is made available?

so is 0.8 inherently flawed, I thought there was a consensus that the blocksize should be lifted? I think this is very poor

 A simple retards guide summing up key points for and against blocksize restriction or lifting should have been stickied in the forum for some time and a poll taken by everybody not just miners, devs and long time posters.

An upgrade should have been built and tested on an isolated blockchain if that is possible,

A announcement about the upcoming availability of the upgrade should have been stickied referring to the poll results and post aforementioned,

A target date and block number should have been specified and downloads of the new client should have been made available along with an "alert£"

Some time before the specified date / block another last chance alert should hav been issued, anyone not upgrading after the date / block should have been left in the dust.



0.8 did not lift the blocksize. The block being big is just a specific problem, it could have been a block too small or too strange (the problem was, however, that the block was very big—but not "too big"). The problem was 0.7 and below rejecting a block that should have been accepted.

0.8 is not flawed. The flaw lied in 0.7 and below. If an upgrade was hastened, the problem would not have been a problem at all.
superfastkyle
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 427
Merit: 250


View Profile
March 12, 2013, 02:43:09 AM
 #112

mt gox had disabled btc withdrawals
we will see below $30 before the night is over
bitpop
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2366
Merit: 1043


https://keybase.io/bitpop


View Profile WWW
March 12, 2013, 02:43:51 AM
 #113

Thanks, reverted to .7. Seeing a lot of errors and going to just let it run.
I'm going to consider myself a miner because I run a p2pool node though I don't think anyone is using it at this point.

will downgrading redownload the entire chain? because wasnt the old db converted?
Nope, because the developers thought ahead with that point. Your chain will start at the last point you ran a 0.7 or below client.

Reputation  |  PGP  |  DigitalOcean  |  TorGuard  |  Ethereum Classic
Bitcoin: 3DSh6AnmvBpDJFUz2mnLirMLmTMcFs9nDm
Bitmessage: BM-2cXN9j8NFT2n1FxDVQ6HQq4D4MZuuaBFyb
ehoffman
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 378
Merit: 250


View Profile
March 12, 2013, 02:44:30 AM
 #114

I do have transaction that are stucked.  Probable cause is that the server I sent to is with the old code, and don't see my transaction.  My client (0.8 ) does see transaction as confirmed.

Like my comments?  Cheer me up at 137s1qFV63M6SXWhKkwjaZKEeZX23pq1hw
Don't like my comments, donate to the BCRT (better comment research team) here at 1A1PbZypjEe7yanj69ApVS1FhK8UMW7Wdc Smiley
bit365
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 350
Merit: 250



View Profile
March 12, 2013, 02:45:23 AM
 #115

The original post lacked info for "regular users".  Here it is:

(1) If you are a "regular user" (not a miner), the best thing is to do nothing and wait a couple hours.
(2) If you are a "regular user",  Upgrading, downgrading, whining, FUD, etc, will make no difference.  Only miners have an incentive to do anything.
(3) Regardless of who you are, your transactions are not dead, your coins are not lost.  They will just temporarily be held up.  If you sent a transaction within the last few hours, it may take a few more hours before it's sorted out.
(4) If you insist on processing transactions right now it's probably best to wait 30+ confirmations.  It's just due diligence though ... an attacker would still need a tremendous amount of mining power, quick thinking, and a victim willing to part with a lot of BTC.
(5) By tomorrow this will be in the past and everything will appear to be normal again.  If you slept through this, you'd never know that anything happend (except for the price drop).

Let me reiterate, your coins are not at risk, your transactions are not lost.  It'll just take some time for the network to "iron itself out."  Everything will be okay.

Very good info.

Luke-Jr
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2422
Merit: 1011



View Profile
March 12, 2013, 02:46:54 AM
 #116

Any idea what version eligius is on?
0.6.0

Deepbit is 0.3.21 IIRC

No_2
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 831
Merit: 1006


BTC: the beginning of stake-based public resources


View Profile WWW
March 12, 2013, 02:47:52 AM
 #117

So let me get this right,

IF we'd all upgrade to .08 then the blocksize restriction would have been lifted, but because not many did we now have a fork and because the 0.7 blockchain is longer we should revert to that until a proper upgrade path to 0.8 is made available?

so is 0.8 inherently flawed, I thought there was a consensus that the blocksize should be lifted? I think this is very poor

 A simple retards guide summing up key points for and against blocksize restriction or lifting should have been stickied in the forum for some time and a poll taken by everybody not just miners, devs and long time posters.

An upgrade should have been built and tested on an isolated blockchain if that is possible,

A announcement about the upcoming availability of the upgrade should have been stickied referring to the poll results and post aforementioned,

A target date and block number should have been specified and downloads of the new client should have been made available along with an "alert£"

Some time before the specified date / block another last chance alert should hav been issued, anyone not upgrading after the date / block should have been left in the dust.



I agree. Did anyone test this? Empirical evidence and testing edge cases are crucial.

Crytponomy: a blockchain and cryptocurrency consultancy
Twitter: @CryptonomyCo | Facebook | Telegram
NilamDoc
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 76
Merit: 10


Bitcoin


View Profile
March 12, 2013, 02:49:04 AM
 #118

The problem is not with the wallet, the problem is with the client 0.7 which was mining. It was not able to accept block chain height 225430.

So,
- if you are using 0.8 -- do not worry
- if you are using 0.8 and mining - stop mining and wait till proper instruction comes from the core development team.
- if you are using 0.7 and not mining - do not worry
- if you are using 0.7 and mining - stop mining and wait till proper instruction comes from the core development team.

blockchain.info has the same alert message and also mtgox.com has stopped accepting inputs

Wait till we get another alert from core team!

Development Only
ChanceCoats123
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 679
Merit: 500



View Profile
March 12, 2013, 02:49:46 AM
 #119

Any idea what version eligius is on?
0.6.0

Deepbit is 0.3.21 IIRC

Thank you for the update!
whitenight639
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 154
Merit: 100



View Profile
March 12, 2013, 02:50:30 AM
 #120

So let me get this right,

IF we'd all upgrade to .08 then the blocksize restriction would have been lifted, but because not many did we now have a fork and because the 0.7 blockchain is longer we should revert to that until a proper upgrade path to 0.8 is made available?

so is 0.8 inherently flawed, I thought there was a consensus that the blocksize should be lifted? I think this is very poor

 A simple retards guide summing up key points for and against blocksize restriction or lifting should have been stickied in the forum for some time and a poll taken by everybody not just miners, devs and long time posters.

An upgrade should have been built and tested on an isolated blockchain if that is possible,

A announcement about the upcoming availability of the upgrade should have been stickied referring to the poll results and post aforementioned,

A target date and block number should have been specified and downloads of the new client should have been made available along with an "alert£"

Some time before the specified date / block another last chance alert should hav been issued, anyone not upgrading after the date / block should have been left in the dust.



0.8 did not lift the blocksize. The block being big is just a specific problem, it could have been a block too small or too strange (the problem was, however, that the block was very big—but not "too big"). The problem was 0.7 and below rejecting a block that should have been accepted.

0.8 is not flawed. The flaw lied in 0.7 and below. If an upgrade was hastened, the problem would not have been a problem at all.


So why are we being told to downgrade if there is an issue with 0.7 accepting / producing (the rare) malformed block, has this issue been addressed in 0.8?

If this is like a zero day issue then everyone rushing to back to the 0.7 that still has the issue is strange, especially if the 0.8 client can integrate the blocks / blockchain produced from 0.7 clients.


It's like finding a vulnarability in XP and then asking Vista users to downgrade to it.  

125uWc197UW5kM659m4uwEakxoNHzMKzwz
Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 [6] 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 »
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Sponsored by , a Bitcoin-accepting VPN.
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!