|
Bytas (OP)
|
 |
April 08, 2013, 02:13:16 PM |
|
So, i saw this very strange thing on blockchain.info, where the newer block is older than the one before it O.o What am i seeing here, is this a typical example of a fork? or just the website being silly? Any theories on this?  |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The Bitcoin network protocol was designed to be extremely flexible. It can be used to create timed transactions, escrow transactions, multi-signature transactions, etc. The current features of the client only hint at what will be possible in the future.
|
|
|
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction.
|
|
|
alexeft
Legendary
 Offline
Activity: 854
Merit: 1000
|
|
April 08, 2013, 02:17:22 PM |
|
I have seen it many times at blockchain.info but I don't know what it is. Perhaps a fork?
|
|
|
|
|
|
kerogre256
|
|
April 08, 2013, 02:26:20 PM |
|
Yeh what happend here ? Can someon explain ?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Bytas (OP)
|
|
April 08, 2013, 02:28:38 PM |
|
Why is this topic moved? We didn't find out yet if this is a problem embedded in the blockchain.
Does this mean it's the site that fails? Some explanation might be nice :p
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Come-from-Beyond
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 2142
Merit: 1009
Newbie
|
|
April 08, 2013, 04:37:12 PM |
|
Relax guys. It's time written into a block. It can vary within 2 hour timeframe.
|
|
|
|
|
Kluge
Donator
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1218
Merit: 1015
|
|
April 08, 2013, 04:49:48 PM |
|
Relax guys. It's time written into a block. It can vary within 2 hour timeframe.
Yup. Happens pretty often. I think Luke-Jr brought up a point (at least a year ago) where it could be problematic for some reason, but it wasn't anything major, IIRC. |
|
|
|
|
DannyHamilton
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 3374
Merit: 4606
|
|
April 08, 2013, 11:06:10 PM |
|
Not a fork.
Not problematic.
Happens often.
There can be no guarantee that every peer on the network has their clocks perfectly synchronized. As such the protocol allows for some leeway in the timestamp that a miner places in the block that they solve. This leeway can result in a newer block having an older timestamp then the block (or blocks) preceding it. Since the blocks are ordered in the blockchain, this isn't a problem. The fact that the block has the hash of the previous block in its header proves that it actually occurred after the previous block, and the peers are all happy with that proof.
|
|
|
|
|
Phinnaeus Gage
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1918
Merit: 1570
Bitcoin: An Idea Worth Spending
|
|
April 09, 2013, 12:06:26 AM |
|
Relax guys. It's time written into a block. It can vary within 2 hour timeframe.
Yup. Happens pretty often. I think Luke-Jr brought up a point (at least a year ago) where it could be problematic for some reason, but it wasn't anything major, IIRC. Yea, nothing to see here just there there was nothing to see when InstaWallet was approached with an issue but assured everybody that everything was fine--then poof, they were gone. I'm sure this is just a hiccup of some nature, but truly, truly needs to be addressed. Full Disclosure (and hope I don't regret this): I truly like BlockChain. |
|
|
|
|
DannyHamilton
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 3374
Merit: 4606
|
|
April 09, 2013, 12:26:02 AM |
|
- snip -
Yea, nothing to see here just there there was nothing to see when InstaWallet was approached with an issue but assured everybody that everything was fine--then poof, they were gone.
I'm sure this is just a hiccup of some nature, but truly, truly needs to be addressed.
- snip -
Come on Phinnaues, you've been around long enough to know better. I thought you had a better understanding of Bitcoin than that. This has nothing to do with blockchain.info. This is an artifact of the timestamp in "the blockchain". I never expected you to be one to try and spread FUD. |
|
|
|
|
|
