Block #226035 is 617kB

[meanig]

Block #226035 is 617kB in size. Does that mean it's going to be orphaned by all the 0.7 nodes?

http://blockchain.info/block-index/358797/00000000000001ba4bd010816667d2706fc0ddb3b258835c7d40d2a8c4d2b6a9

[justusranvier]

Block #226035 is 617kB in size.

Size isn't enough to know if it will be rejected by the 0.7 clients. Number of transactions is probably a better indicator.

This one only has 1129 compared to the 1752 that caused the last problem.

[jgarzik]

1MB blocks were tested without incident long ago on testnet, under the same rules that failed on March 11th.

The issue is not block size, but more complex, something like "number of existing BDB transaction index records accessed during block verification" (past transactions accessed/spent).

[meanig]

Okay, thanks for the explanation.

[Mike Hearn]

I sent a mail to fireduck about it.

[bg002h]

Are we still vulnerable to a network split?  I mean, surely a very similar block to the one that caused all the problems will pop up again shortly...

[FreeMoney]

Are we still vulnerable to a network split?  I mean, surely a very similar block to the one that caused all the problems will pop up again shortly...

A block like the one that caused the fork will now just be ignored because the power decided to move to 0.7.

[Mike Hearn]

It could result in a temporary split but it'll heal again very fast as the majority would reject it.

[Pieter Wuille]

Block 226035 affected 3343 distinct transactions, which is high, but far from the presumed tipping point of 0.7 and earlier (assumed to be around 4800).