slush
Legendary
 Offline
Activity: 1386
Merit: 1097
|
 |
March 12, 2013, 06:28:54 AM |
|
It was fascinating to watch the higher block chain continue to build. Was it ignorance by some large miners? Or was it an intentional attempt to keep the blockchain forked.
No, it was night. I woke up at 3am thanks to one guy who called me over skype. I have a lot of monitoring scripts which trigger SMS alert when something bad happen on pool, but there was almost no chance to catch this, because the bug wasn't in bitcoind 0.8 used by the pool, but in previous (and still widely spread) bitcoind 0.7. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
redbeans2012
|
|
March 12, 2013, 06:32:16 AM |
|
Block 225455  glad were all on the same chain now! Even more glad the price didnt plummet. Thanks in part to the fact that noone could move BTC's into gox. :p |
|
|
|
|
farproc
Sr. Member
Offline
Activity: 406
Merit: 250
ALGORY.io Crowdsale starts on 8/12/2017
|
|
March 12, 2013, 06:33:22 AM |
|
It was fascinating to watch the higher block chain continue to build. Was it ignorance by some large miners? Or was it an intentional attempt to keep the blockchain forked.
No, it was night. I woke up at 3am thanks to one guy who called me over skype. I have a lot of monitoring scripts which trigger SMS alert when something bad happen on pool, but there was almost no chance to catch this, because the bug wasn't in bitcoind 0.8 used by the pool, but in previous (and still widely spread) bitcoind 0.7. It is afternoon here. GMT+8  |
|
|
|
|
beekeeper
|
|
March 12, 2013, 06:33:52 AM |
|
Whoever has an accout on arstechnica, please comment there, tell that event is over.
|
|
|
|
pvz
Newbie
Offline
Activity: 53
Merit: 0
|
|
March 12, 2013, 06:34:33 AM |
|
... and Luke on 0.6.0? Eligius is actually running both 0.6.0 and 0.8.0 concurrently, but has 0.6.0 prioritized so it trumps 0.8.0 when there's a conflict. It noticed and began reporting the problem immediately, but I guess wizkid057 was busy with something at the time. I prefer that the big/most miners have the same setup (old + new version + fallback to old version). Let me rephrase: It seems 'tested' clients are not always backwards compatible. Why not give the best test there is (real life situation) to a new version with the best fail-save there is (the previous/old version). |
|
|
|
|
Quantus
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 883
Merit: 1005
|
|
March 12, 2013, 06:34:45 AM |
|
IN 3 hours the price of bitcoins will be around 14 bucks. Mark my words
|
(I am a 1MB block supporter who thinks all users should be using Full-Node clients) Avoid the XT shills, they only want to destroy bitcoin, their hubris and greed will destroy us. Know your adversary https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BKorP55Aqvg |
|
|
|
J.Socal
|
|
March 12, 2013, 06:36:25 AM |
|
I sent myself 2 small payments a while ago and they confirmed,but 29 coin transaction received 5 hours earlier is still stuck on 0-6.Hopefully this error gets fixed.  |
|
|
|
|
tomaszsz
Member
Offline
Activity: 76
Merit: 10
|
|
March 12, 2013, 06:39:54 AM |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Gabi
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1148
Merit: 1008
If you want to walk on water, get out of the boat
|
|
March 12, 2013, 06:41:33 AM |
|
If the problem is solved, remove the red, scary message And great job solving the problem! Bitcoin, finding bugs in the database that not even Oracle know! IN 3 hours the price of bitcoins will be around 14 bucks BUY BUY BUY  C'mon, sometime the world stock exchanges have problems too but it is not that when it happens, the world market crash did i losnt my bitcoins ?? it is still unconfirmed 0 fee, it will be confirmed eventually, just wait! |
|
|
|
|
chrisrico
|
|
March 12, 2013, 06:41:38 AM |
|
Nope, as long as you didn't double spend against yourself, you will eventually see your transaction confirm. Even if it was in the losing chain, it will get reincorporated into the main chain. |
|
|
|
|
NegativeNancy
Newbie
Offline
Activity: 39
Merit: 0
|
|
March 12, 2013, 06:43:04 AM |
|
This has been interesting to read. The problem has almost corrected itself, and may be corrected by the time I press "submit".
Users never needed to downgrade. Miners didn't really need to downgrade either. They needed to stop producing very large blocks. And they needed to be poked to ignore the higher block, temporarily. [Downgrading accomplishes both, but I doubt that most miners went to that trouble.]
Amazing. So you read this entire thread, came away with zero clue as to what happened, and decided to start preaching to the rest of us? Maybe try reading it again. |
|
|
|
|
|
jwzguy
|
|
March 12, 2013, 06:43:41 AM |
|
Apparently from what I read, this was handled extremely well. My respect to the devs.
+1 |
|
|
|
|
Blowfeld
Newbie
Offline
Activity: 53
Merit: 0
|
|
March 12, 2013, 06:45:01 AM |
|
This all started when the lead developer issued an "off the cuff" suggestion to enlarge the block size from 250K to 500K. A miner went the extra step and enlarged the block to 1M, which *should* have been legal. But there wasn't enough system and integration testing. [There was *none* as far as I can tell with respect to this suggested change.] Perhaps the community will learn to avoid untested changes in the future. It wasn't the size of the block that caused the problem. It *was* indirectly because of the size of the block. Even at 166 bytes each (or whatever the minimum size of transaction), a 250K block cannot contain 1700+ transactions. And a number of transactions that exceeds the BDB configuration is believed to be the root of the problem. I know hindsight is 20/20, but I will give the developers credit and assume testing all extremes from 1 really big transaction to many really tiny transactions probably would have been in a formal release cycle. No such testing was done, chiefly because this was an off the cuff suggestion, not a formal release. |
|
|
|
|
Quantus
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 883
Merit: 1005
|
|
March 12, 2013, 06:45:50 AM |
|
Can we plz go to yellow alert now?
|
(I am a 1MB block supporter who thinks all users should be using Full-Node clients) Avoid the XT shills, they only want to destroy bitcoin, their hubris and greed will destroy us. Know your adversary https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BKorP55Aqvg |
|
|
|
chrisrico
|
|
March 12, 2013, 06:46:44 AM |
|
It *was* indirectly because of the size of the block. Even at 166 bytes each (or whatever the minimum size of transaction), a 250K block cannot contain 1700+ transactions. And a number of transactions that exceeds the BDB configuration is believed to be the root of the problem. I know hindsight is 20/20, but I will give the developers credit and assume testing all extremes from 1 really big transaction to many really tiny transactions probably would have been in a formal release cycle. No such testing was done, chiefly because this was an off the cuff suggestion, not a formal release.
The problem is with the old version, and is a previously unknown bug. Are you saying the developers should have thought to test the old version for an unknown bug before releasing the new version? |
|
|
|
|
|
thefiniteidea
|
|
March 12, 2013, 06:52:18 AM |
|
Can we plz go to yellow alert now?
Awww the poor bunny.... look at what the big stupid oracle database did. someone please comfort the scared little bunny, this is just adorably sad  |
|
|
|
|
imardern
Member
Offline
Activity: 72
Merit: 10
|
|
March 12, 2013, 06:54:49 AM |
|
Can we plz go to yellow alert now?
Agreed. Really hoping major selloff does not occur. This issue was handled very effectively and quickly. Hopefully pessimistic btc holders will not go on a selling spree. |
|
|
|
|
dave111223
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1190
Merit: 1001
|
|
March 12, 2013, 06:55:38 AM |
|
Can we go to a cornflower blue alert?
|
|
|
|
|
|
jwzguy
|
|
March 12, 2013, 06:59:01 AM |
|
Can we plz go to yellow alert now?
Agreed. Really hoping major selloff does not occur. This issue was handled very effectively and quickly. Hopefully pessimistic btc holders will not go on a selling spree. I wouldn't worry. Anyone foolish enough to panic sell will find an eager buyer. Every time that happens, the coins move to stronger hands and the market becomes more resistant to that behavior. |
|
|
|
|
|
