blandead
Newbie
 Offline
Activity: 46
Merit: 0
|
 |
February 17, 2012, 05:49:58 AM |
|
I Found my first block too on slush during a 5 hour marathon, or right after. How do I check in block explorer my hash that found the block? Or how do I recognize it's from me?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
slush (OP)
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1386
Merit: 1097
|
|
February 17, 2012, 12:20:01 PM |
|
I Found my first block too on slush during a 5 hour marathon, or right after. How do I check in block explorer my hash that found the block? Or how do I recognize it's from me?
If you don't log submitted shares, there's no way to check in blockexplorer which block you mined. If you're loggin submitted shares, then sha256(sha256(submitted_data)) == block hash on blockexplorer. |
|
|
|
|
kkurtmann
|
|
February 18, 2012, 07:35:54 PM |
|
so... no namecoin rewards for blocks 10688-10694?
|
|
|
|
Epoch
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 922
Merit: 1003
|
|
February 18, 2012, 10:08:22 PM |
|
3 consecutive invalid blocks (10724-10726); is that right?
|
|
|
|
|
rjk
Sr. Member
Offline
Activity: 448
Merit: 250
1ngldh
|
|
February 18, 2012, 10:17:07 PM |
|
3 consecutive invalid blocks (10724-10726); is that right?
Probably just blockexplorer acting up again. |
|
|
|
allinvain
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 3080
Merit: 1080
|
|
February 19, 2012, 03:38:03 PM |
|
Definitely blockexplorer. It's down at the moment.
|
|
|
|
Jarredm
Member
Offline
Activity: 63
Merit: 10
|
|
February 19, 2012, 06:19:16 PM |
|
Just thought I'd mention that it looks like pool blocks 10739 and 10738 are currently marked invalid but appear to be valid on blockchaininfo. I'm assuming another blockexplorer problem that'll have to be corrected manually.
|
|
|
|
|
conspirosphere.tk
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 2352
Merit: 1064
Bitcoin is antisemitic
|
|
February 20, 2012, 08:49:25 AM |
|
There is a string of 8 invalid blocks made yesterday. I hope they are going to be fixed too.
|
|
|
|
|
slush (OP)
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1386
Merit: 1097
|
|
February 20, 2012, 09:55:52 AM |
|
Yes, today or tomorrow I'll rewrite validation logic to check against blockexplorer.com AND blockchain.info. This blockexplorer downtime is ridiculous...
About namecoin rewards - I didn't forget to that, but was too busy in last days. I'll fix it soon, too. Sorry for delay...
|
|
|
|
eleuthria
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1750
Merit: 1007
|
|
February 20, 2012, 01:37:06 PM |
|
Yes, today or tomorrow I'll rewrite validation logic to check against blockexplorer.com AND blockchain.info. This blockexplorer downtime is ridiculous...
About namecoin rewards - I didn't forget to that, but was too busy in last days. I'll fix it soon, too. Sorry for delay...
Slush: Any reason you don't just poll bitcoind for validity rather than an external website? |
RIP BTC Guild, April 2011 - June 2015
|
|
|
|
shad
|
|
February 20, 2012, 04:09:20 PM |
|
Yes, today or tomorrow I'll rewrite validation logic to check against blockexplorer.com AND blockchain.info. This blockexplorer downtime is ridiculous...
About namecoin rewards - I didn't forget to that, but was too busy in last days. I'll fix it soon, too. Sorry for delay...
Slush: Any reason you don't just poll bitcoind for validity rather than an external website? same question here |
15dUzJEUkxgjrtcvDSdsEDkXu7E7RCbNN3
|
|
|
slush (OP)
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1386
Merit: 1097
|
|
February 20, 2012, 05:21:09 PM |
|
Slush: Any reason you don't just poll bitcoind for validity rather than an external website?
This is simple check against Sibil attack. Of course block explorers can be on the same "cluster", but it's harder than isolate just one bitcoind instance. I'm pretty paranoid and system marks block as invalid when there's even chance that something on bitcoin network is broken. Until this issue, blockexplorer had very high uptime so there wasn't any need to solve it in different way. But this week outage is really strange... |
|
|
|
CfB
Newbie
Offline
Activity: 22
Merit: 0
|
|
February 21, 2012, 01:20:52 AM
Last edit: February 21, 2012, 01:32:56 AM by CfB |
|
Hooray! Slush has succeeded in time time travel!
# Block found Duration Total shares BTC reward NMC reward Block # Validity
10771 2012-02-21 01:07:54 -1 day, 23:59:58 Processing... 167730 100 confirmations left
Congratulations, slush! Better patent the process quickly!
|
|
|
|
|
allinvain
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 3080
Merit: 1080
|
|
February 21, 2012, 02:03:00 AM |
|
I was going to make the same post lool  Yeah, congrats slush! |
|
|
|
Tapeworm3
Newbie
Offline
Activity: 10
Merit: 0
|
|
February 21, 2012, 02:04:31 AM |
|
Hooray! Slush has succeeded in time time travel!
# Block found Duration Total shares BTC reward NMC reward Block # Validity
10771 2012-02-21 01:07:54 -1 day, 23:59:58 Processing... 167730 100 confirmations left
Congratulations, slush! Better patent the process quickly!
I thought I was the only one who noticed. I wish I could negate a few days in my life. |
|
|
|
|
eleuthria
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1750
Merit: 1007
|
|
February 21, 2012, 02:24:15 AM |
|
Hey now, Time Travelling pools were (or will be depending upon your interpretation of temporal interference) banned! Nothing can stop a 51% attack when you can just send blocks back to the days of CPU mining!
|
RIP BTC Guild, April 2011 - June 2015
|
|
|
slush (OP)
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1386
Merit: 1097
|
|
February 21, 2012, 11:45:47 AM |
|
lol :-). It was just small glitch in timestamp in extremely short round. Well, those two hashes has been found almost instantly (33 shares are, with current share submission rate, almost nothing). Unfortunately this block is really invalid, because backend hadn't synchronized blockchain.
|
|
|
|
|
BinoX
|
|
February 21, 2012, 07:36:38 PM |
|
Are there really 8 invalid blocks or is there some kind of problem again?
|
|
|
|
|
portron
Member
Offline
Activity: 106
Merit: 10
|
|
February 21, 2012, 07:57:26 PM |
|
Are there really 8 invalid blocks or is there some kind of problem again?
http://blockexplorer.com/Error Database connection timeout (likely due to overload). Try again later. |
|
|
|
|
|
digital
|
|
February 21, 2012, 08:17:14 PM |
|
yeah, slush has been having to validate blocks manually due to the blockexplorer issues.
But he did say that he was going to add blockchain.info to the validation process so the pool can use either one to validate the blocks. Im guessing he's working on it right now...
|
If I help you out: 17QatvSdciyv2zsdAbphDEUzST1S6x46c3
References (bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=): 50051.20 50051.100 53668.0 53788.0 53571.0 53571.0 52212.0 50729.0 114804.0 115468 78106 69061 58572 54747
|
|
|
|
