block.version=1 blocks will all be orphaned soon

[evilpete]

A fresh v1 turned up at 227835, and that caused the finish line to jump forward.

The 50th oldest v1 is currently at 226951, so the cutover now should be 227951.  As of writing, the block number is 227851 so that's 100 to go.

[1714940593]

1714940593

[1714940593]

1714940593

[1714940593]

1714940593

[keystroke]

A fresh v1 turned up at 227835, and that caused the finish line to jump forward.

The 50th oldest v1 is currently at 226951, so the cutover now should be 227951.  As of writing, the block number is 227851 so that's 100 to go.

Who might these unknowns be who haven't upgraded? Solo miners? Botnets still possible?

[evilpete]

Who? http://blockorigin.pfoe.be/top.php implies that coinlabs and btc warp haven't updated.  But you don't have to be a pool to mine, it could be somebody with a gpu that's solo mining and getting lucky, a group of friends, somebody keeping their company's PC's busy overnight.. who knows?

FWIW, in age order:
50th: 226951
49th: 226954
48th: 226960
47th: 226971
46th: 226974

Assuming no more v1's, then the "last 1000" will have 50 x v1's and hence 95% at 227951.

One more v1 block pushes it to 227954.  Two more -> 227960.  Then 971, and 974.

At the current 855, that's 96 to go, best case.

[solex]

The reason all this is important is not just that some miners will be forced to upgrade or give up Bitcoin when the 95% is reached. What's important is that this is a proof of concept for implementation of changes in the "wish list" and "hard fork" baskets.

The block version mechanism for a majority consensus on accepting such changes is essential if Bitcoin is to succeed by capturing a significant chunk of the fiat and payments market share. News from the EU this week shows the dark alternative of trusting fiat systems forever.

[keystroke]

The reason all this is important is not just that some miners will be forced to upgrade or give up Bitcoin when the 95% is reached. What's important is that this is a proof of concept for implementation of changes in the "wish list" and "hard fork" baskets.

The block version mechanism for a majority consensus on accepting such changes is essential if Bitcoin is to succeed by capturing a significant chunk of the fiat and payments market share. News from the EU this week shows the dark alternative of trusting fiat systems forever.

Yes, exactly. +1
Just got to 94%.

Edit:
11 blocks to go. Block 227930 should be it.

[jgarzik]

This event is now past.

[jl2012]

What happens to the few coinbase transactions with duplicate transaction id? Are the coins irrecoverably lost?

[solex]

http://blockchain.info/block-index/368023/0000000000000124fefda3e554e72cd08aad4b9caaa6e4c3221ae93238180c0c

latest block 227938 shown as v1, so I would expect this to be orphaned, although blockchain has it shown as main chain still...

edit: blockexplorer shows a different block, v2
http://blockexplorer.com/block/00000000000001f205a713a6e23dd2f8c3eed42ffbd765bdfe54d353757ee18a

[jl2012]

http://blockchain.info/block-index/368023/0000000000000124fefda3e554e72cd08aad4b9caaa6e4c3221ae93238180c0c

latest block 227938 shown as v1, so I would expect this to be orphaned, although blockchain has it shown as main chain still...

edit: blockexplorer shows a different block, v2
http://blockexplorer.com/block/00000000000001f205a713a6e23dd2f8c3eed42ffbd765bdfe54d353757ee18a

The latest 2 blocks (227938, 227939) are both version 1. What's going on??? A fork??

[jl2012]

http://blockchain.info/block-index/368023/0000000000000124fefda3e554e72cd08aad4b9caaa6e4c3221ae93238180c0c

latest block 227938 shown as v1, so I would expect this to be orphaned, although blockchain has it shown as main chain still...

edit: blockexplorer shows a different block, v2
http://blockexplorer.com/block/00000000000001f205a713a6e23dd2f8c3eed42ffbd765bdfe54d353757ee18a

The latest 2 blocks (227938, 227939) are both version 1. What's going on??? A fork??

Something strange happened..... I'm running 0.8.1 and only have 00000000000001f205a713a6e23dd2f8c3eed42ffbd765bdfe54d353757ee18a (227938, v2)

However, blockchain.info has no record of 00000000000001f205a713a6e23dd2f8c3eed42ffbd765bdfe54d353757ee18a, and have 0000000000000124fefda3e554e72cd08aad4b9caaa6e4c3221ae93238180c0c (227938, v1) and 000000000000025fcc58a882db6c3b47ea90935b522c08d279e415b9529de41d (227939, v1) instead

[evilpete]

A very large portion of v2 hashing is offline (btcguild - roughly 30-40%; for nearly 3 hours now) and a couple of v1 miners got lucky in a row.

The rest of the v2 network overtook them and the network reorganized.

[jgarzik]

What happens to the few coinbase transactions with duplicate transaction id? Are the coins irrecoverably lost?

Yes.  The newer coinbase stomps the older coinbase, making the older coinbase unspendable.

[eleuthria]

A very large portion of v2 hashing is offline (btcguild - roughly 30-40%; for nearly 3 hours now) and a couple of v1 miners got lucky in a row.

The rest of the v2 network overtook them and the network reorganized.

Only about 3 TH/s of BTC Guild was offline.  The DDoS was only affecting getwork and a few people using the very first versions of Stratum which couldn't connect properly without being redirected from getwork.

[Nancarrow]

A very large portion of v2 hashing is offline (btcguild - roughly 30-40%; for nearly 3 hours now) and a couple of v1 miners got lucky in a row.

The rest of the v2 network overtook them and the network reorganized.

Excuse the tinfoil hat, but, notwithstanding Eleuthria's correction of your percentages, did we just see an attempt to sabotage Bitcoin? I know Eleuthria has had the occasional DDOS before, but this particular one at this particular time? I sure hope the dev team and a few pool operators are busy combing through transaction logs with forensic attention to detail...

[spunit262]

A very large portion of v2 hashing is offline (btcguild - roughly 30-40%; for nearly 3 hours now) and a couple of v1 miners got lucky in a row.

The rest of the v2 network overtook them and the network reorganized.

Excuse the tinfoil hat, but, notwithstanding Eleuthria's correction of your percentages, did we just see an attempt to sabotage Bitcoin? I know Eleuthria has had the occasional DDOS before, but this particular one at this particular time? I sure hope the dev team and a few pool operators are busy combing through transaction logs with forensic attention to detail...

Given all the hubbub about his pool getting close to 51%, it could have been an extremely miss guided attempt to save Bitcoin.

[caveden]

I think I was sleeping while all this happened.

Could somebody please explain me one thing.... The whole point of this "version 2 blocks" was just to include the height in the coinbase? I mean... can't the height just be calculated? Couldn't local databases add the height on their data, in an extra field of some kind? Need it be on the protocol?

I fail to see why going through all this hassle just to add the block height to coinbase...

[jl2012]

I think I was sleeping while all this happened.

Could somebody please explain me one thing.... The whole point of this "version 2 blocks" was just to include the height in the coinbase? I mean... can't the height just be calculated? Couldn't local databases add the height on their data, in an extra field of some kind? Need it be on the protocol?

I fail to see why going through all this hassle just to add the block height to coinbase...

It's to avoid identical coinbase transactions: https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/BIP_0034