1. this proves that consensus and orphans work
2. this proves that altcoins are not created
3. this proves that all the doomsdays are wrong.
people need to realise that within 3 seconds the block got rejected. orphaned off.. thrown away, put in the trash, not used, gone
2017-01-29 06:59:12 Requesting block 000000000000000000cf208f521de0424677f7a87f2f278a1042f38d159565f5 from peer=729
2017-01-29 06:59:15 received block 000000000000000000cf208f521de0424677f7a87f2f278a1042f38d159565f5 peer=729
2017-01-29 06:59:15 ERROR: AcceptBlock: bad-blk-length, size limits failed (code 16)
meaning consensus works. bitcoin is still in one piece.
the network will only validate and accept blocks over 1mb when there is a majority.
so this is actually a positive by squashing all the fake doomsdays of altcoins and splits by BU.
WAKE UP PEOPLE
the real funny part is, although bitcoins built in mechanism from 2009 works as it should..
the core blockstream fans fear consensus, soo much they actually manually and automatically banned nodes AFTER bitcoins built in code done what it should, thus now core are the risk of causing an intentional bilateral split.. by avoiding the natural orphan mechanism by ignoring nodes instead of just rejecting blocks.
here is what would happen is they didnt ban nodes and someone passed them the same block
2017-01-29 07:02:10 receive version message: /BitcoinUnlimited:0.12.1(EB16; AD4)/: version 80002, blocks=450529, peer=737
2017-01-29 07:02:10 received: headers (82 bytes) peer=737
2017-01-29 07:02:10 ERROR: AcceptBlockHeader: block 000000000000000000cf208f521de0424677f7a87f2f278a1042f38d159565f5 is marked invalid
meaning its already been marked as dead, so dont handle it. IN THE SAME SECOND
thus
no need to block nodes. as bitcoins consensus already pushed it to the side as a non issue within the same second
ha ha ha. im laughing
ofcourse gmaxwell instead of highlighting that consensus worked and issue resolved in 3 seconds where that block is automaticaly flagged as invalid if picked up again by another node..is do nothing more within a second.. (meaning he didnt highlight what consensus does). but instead orgasmed at the opportunity that his auto ban settings in core intentionally banned the nodes.. thus making a bilateral split possible due to core ignorance and use of an auto node ban feature.
(desperation i smell in gmaxwells pants)
Every Bitcoin Core node happily banned the BU peers that gave them this invalid block,
he kind of back tracked after to half explain consensus, where he said (not verbatim) 'an SPV would see the block until a new block officially pushes it away'.
although spv clients also rejected it in SECONDS using consensus without having to ban nodes. but maxwell didnt highlight the no need to ban peers aspect..
SPV wallet user who were connected to BU nodes may have seen a false confirmations for 24 minutes until 450530 was mined which decisively overtook the invalid 450529. Fortunately, in this case it doesn't appear that SPV miners exacerbated the invalid block fork though several did follow it briefly.
gmaxwell is desparate to cause an altcoin. he is even celebrating it
You missed a great opportunity for alliteration: Bugged block brings blanket BU bans.
desperate man, afraid of consensus that much he is willing to bilateral split the network.. as shown by earlier evidence of even wanting to bilateral split the network just to force segwit in
If there is some reason when the users of Bitcoin would rather have it activate at 90% ... then even with the 95% rule the network could choose to activate it at 90% just by orphaning the blocks of the non-supporters until 95%+ of the remaining blocks signaled activation.
