Bitcoin Forum
May 06, 2024, 10:22:56 AM *
News: Latest Bitcoin Core release: 27.0 [Torrent]
 
   Home   Help Search Login Register More  
Pages: [1]
  Print  
Author Topic: was network fork caused by ASICS?  (Read 1117 times)
FreedomCoin (OP)
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 675
Merit: 507


Freedom to choose


View Profile
March 15, 2013, 09:00:29 PM
 #1

hey guys,

Was the software glitch in the 0.7 wallets caused by much higher shares than expected at the time 0.7 was created? Caused by a surge of shares being mined?

1714990976
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1714990976

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1714990976
Reply with quote  #2

1714990976
Report to moderator
1714990976
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1714990976

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1714990976
Reply with quote  #2

1714990976
Report to moderator
1714990976
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1714990976

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1714990976
Reply with quote  #2

1714990976
Report to moderator
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction.
1714990976
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1714990976

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1714990976
Reply with quote  #2

1714990976
Report to moderator
1714990976
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1714990976

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1714990976
Reply with quote  #2

1714990976
Report to moderator
1714990976
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1714990976

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1714990976
Reply with quote  #2

1714990976
Report to moderator
crazyates
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 952
Merit: 1000



View Profile
March 15, 2013, 09:18:55 PM
 #2

hey guys,

Was the software glitch in the 0.7 wallets caused by much higher shares than expected at the time 0.7 was created? Caused by a surge of shares being mined?
No. It was caused by an increase of transactions across the network, and the old legacy setting of having blocks be 250kb wasn't cutting it anymore. Some pools increased the size of their blocks to a much larger setting, and that caused unforeseen problems. One of the blocks that a 0.8 pool built was over 750kb, and all the pools on 0.8 accepted it, and all the pools on 0.7 and older rejected it. This caused a split, and essentially forked the network in two.

Devs swarmed in, and fixed it by having everyone downgrade to 0.7, and basically forced the 0.8 half of the fork to die.

This was not caused by ASICs, or the high difficulty. This would have happened if everyone was CPU mining, as it was a protocol and block building problem, not a difficulty or hardware problem.

Note: If I got any details in this whole fiasco wrong, please feel free to correct me.

Tips? 1crazy8pMqgwJ7tX7ZPZmyPwFbc6xZKM9
Previous Trade History - Sale Thread
FreedomCoin (OP)
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 675
Merit: 507


Freedom to choose


View Profile
March 16, 2013, 03:35:42 PM
 #3

hey guys,

Was the software glitch in the 0.7 wallets caused by much higher shares than expected at the time 0.7 was created? Caused by a surge of shares being mined?
No. It was caused by an increase of transactions across the network, and the old legacy setting of having blocks be 250kb wasn't cutting it anymore. Some pools increased the size of their blocks to a much larger setting, and that caused unforeseen problems. One of the blocks that a 0.8 pool built was over 750kb, and all the pools on 0.8 accepted it, and all the pools on 0.7 and older rejected it. This caused a split, and essentially forked the network in two.

Devs swarmed in, and fixed it by having everyone downgrade to 0.7, and basically forced the 0.8 half of the fork to die.

This was not caused by ASICs, or the high difficulty. This would have happened if everyone was CPU mining, as it was a protocol and block building problem, not a difficulty or hardware problem.

Note: If I got any details in this whole fiasco wrong, please feel free to correct me.


So, it wasn't technically the ASICs fault, but couldn't they still be a precursor to the problem? People can mine at a faster rate, so they become more willing to spend btc, causing more transactions, especially if people are purchasing high dollar items, like the ASICs, with btcs. Whereas before, when it took longer to amass btcs, people were more likely to hoard them instead of spending them.

crazyates
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 952
Merit: 1000



View Profile
March 16, 2013, 08:27:53 PM
 #4

So, it wasn't technically the ASICs fault, but couldn't they still be a precursor to the problem? People can mine at a faster rate, so they become more willing to spend btc, causing more transactions, especially if people are purchasing high dollar items, like the ASICs, with btcs. Whereas before, when it took longer to amass btcs, people were more likely to hoard them instead of spending them.
Again, the answer is "No". People are mining at a faster rate, but the purpose of difficulty is to keep the supply of Bitcoins generated at 6 blocks an hour. If everyone was still using CPUs, the difficulty would be lower, and the network would be generating the same amount of Bitcoins per day, but we would have the same problem with transactions that resulted in the 0.7 vs 0.8 fork.

People are more willing to spend Bitcoins because there are ~10,900,000 million BTC that have been already mined and in the market today, so people are willing to spend what they have. And large value transactions (like those that result from purchasing ASICs) are not what necessitated the need for larger block sizes. It was the sheer number of transactions that are going on continually, which is a sign of increased Bitcoin Adoption, which I consider to be a good thing.

If you're looking for someone to blame, a lot of people point the finger at SatoshiDice. SD generates a very LARGE number of very small transactions constantly, which is exactly what caused this problem.

Tips? 1crazy8pMqgwJ7tX7ZPZmyPwFbc6xZKM9
Previous Trade History - Sale Thread
Pages: [1]
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!