Error in blockchain ?

[aplistir]

Or maybe a bug in block-explorers ?

This address: "16va6NxJrMGe5d2LP6wUzuVnzBBoKQZKom"
Has different amounts of bitcoins in different block-explorers!
How can it be possible?

blockchani.info says it has 50BTC
https://blockchain.info/address/16va6NxJrMGe5d2LP6wUzuVnzBBoKQZKom
bitinfocharts shows 100BTC
https://bitinfocharts.com/bitcoin/address/16va6NxJrMGe5d2LP6wUzuVnzBBoKQZKom
and blockexplorer shows 0.00050026BTC
https://blockexplorer.com/address/16va6NxJrMGe5d2LP6wUzuVnzBBoKQZKom

What is going on in here?

Personally I think 100 BTC shown by bitinfocharts is the correct one. Could anyone running a full node check what address: "16va6NxJrMGe5d2LP6wUzuVnzBBoKQZKom" has in it?

[1714777260]

1714777260

[1714777260]

1714777260

[1714777260]

1714777260

[LoyceV]

Interesting find! If I try to import the address into Mycelium (on Android), it crashes first. After a restart it shows 50.00050026 BTC.

http://btc-priceimg.herokuapp.com uses blockchain.info's api: Balance:

https://blockexplorer.com/tx/d5d27987d2a3dfc724e359870c6644b40e497bdc0589a033220fe15429d88599 shows the 50 Bitcoin created from mining, I haven't used this site before, it seems to not include it when checking the address itself. I'd say that's a bug on blockexplorer.com.

blockchain.info shows both 50 Bitcoin transactions to that address:
block 91812 and block 91842, both have the same txid: d5d27987d2a3dfc724e359870c6644b40e497bdc0589a033220fe15429d88599.
I read this on I thought trxid is unique. It's fixed years ago:

see https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/blob/master/bip-0030.mediawiki

What's more interesting is this:

Blockchain.info only shows 50btc in the address:
https://blockchain.info/address/16va6NxJrMGe5d2LP6wUzuVnzBBoKQZKom

In some sense Blockchain.info is right.  Only one of the two transactions is spendable.  To put it another way, there is only one transaction that just occurred in two blocks.

So who did this just "ignored" 50 deserved coins by overwritting previous unspent ones?

Yes, exactly.  That was presumably a bug in their mining setup (and not done intentionally).

If I interpret this correctly, it means one of these 50 Bitcoins block rewards was never mined. If that's true, the total number of Bitcoins will be 50 less than 20999999.9769! Only 20999949.9769 BTC can ever be created now.

[miguelmorales85]

Or maybe a bug in block-explorers ?

This address: "16va6NxJrMGe5d2LP6wUzuVnzBBoKQZKom"
Has different amounts of bitcoins in different block-explorers!
How can it be possible?

blockchani.info says it has 50BTC
https://blockchain.info/address/16va6NxJrMGe5d2LP6wUzuVnzBBoKQZKom
bitinfocharts shows 100BTC
https://bitinfocharts.com/bitcoin/address/16va6NxJrMGe5d2LP6wUzuVnzBBoKQZKom
and blockexplorer shows 0.00050026BTC
https://blockexplorer.com/address/16va6NxJrMGe5d2LP6wUzuVnzBBoKQZKom

What is going on in here?

Personally I think 100 BTC shown by bitinfocharts is the correct one. Could anyone running a full node check what address: "16va6NxJrMGe5d2LP6wUzuVnzBBoKQZKom" has in it?

this is a relaly interesting issue you got there.

How did you find this address and why did you start looking for the balance in different block explorers? I'm just curious.

Anyway, I thought at first this was a recently transaction and should need to "stabilize" in the network to show the real value but this is a transaction from 2010 !

I got no clue

[cr1776]

Check out:

https://github.com/kristovatlas/interesting-bitcoin-data/blob/master/README.md

And in particular this:

https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/blob/master/bip-0030.mediawiki

It should help to explain this.

[aplistir]

this is a relaly interesting issue you got there.

How did you find this address and why did you start looking for the balance in different block explorers? I'm just curious.

Anyway, I thought at first this was a recently transaction and should need to "stabilize" in the network to show the real value but this is a transaction from 2010 !

Wow. Good replies to this thread. I now realized, that I should have googled the address before posting. I thought I had found something new.

I was going through a list of old zombie-bitcoins using a script that uses blockchain.info instead of downloading the full blockchain and examining it locally.
Just to see how many zombie bitcoins have come to life after the list was made in 2014.
(The script is quite bad, as it takes a long time to check the list of addresses)

But anyhow among the differences between when the address-list was made and now, there were some odd looking numbers. Among them the  address: "16va6NxJrMGe5d2LP6wUzuVnzBBoKQZKom", where in the list it had 100BTC and now it only had 50BTC and this had happened without a single send action. (I did also notice the other one)

I checked it with other blockchain-explorers, because bitcoin.info handles some other things uniquely too. Eg. If there is a send action from an address to the same address, blockchain.info counts it as moving 0BTC and it not being a send action from the address ??, whereas other explorers show the actual amount moved and it being a send action. Increasing both the amount of coins send and received.
So basically I trust blockchain.info less when there is a difference among blockchain-explorers

And what did I find out when examining the zombie coins. Not much, except that during this year(2017) there have been quite many zombie coins from the beginning of 2011 that have come back to life. I thought that was unexpected, because I would assume that coins that have not been touched since 2011 most probable newer would.
Might have been a little wrong with my assumption...

[aplistir]

Check out:
https://github.com/kristovatlas/interesting-bitcoin-data/blob/master/README.md

And in particular this:

https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/blob/master/bip-0030.mediawiki

It should help to explain this.

Wow. Excellent detective work, and also very interesting links. Thanks 

[BenOnceAgain]

Check out:

https://github.com/kristovatlas/interesting-bitcoin-data/blob/master/README.md

And in particular this:

https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/blob/master/bip-0030.mediawiki

It should help to explain this.

Thanks for this.  As someone that wasn't around in the early years, these are very interesting transactions.  I've scanned that BIP but I'm going to read it closer now.

Much appreciated.

[LoyceV]

And what did I find out when examining the zombie coins. Not much, except that during this year(2017) there have been quite many zombie coins from the beginning of 2011 that have come back to life. I thought that was unexpected, because I would assume that coins that have not been touched since 2011 most probable newer would.
Might have been a little wrong with my assumption...

Can you show a list of addresses that became active after 6 years?

[aplistir]

And what did I find out when examining the zombie coins. Not much, except that during this year(2017) there have been quite many zombie coins from the beginning of 2011 that have come back to life. I thought that was unexpected, because I would assume that coins that have not been touched since 2011 most probable newer would.
Might have been a little wrong with my assumption...

Can you show a list of addresses that became active after 6 years?

Cant show the complete list, because I didn't save it, but here is a list of addresses that have been created in January and February of 2011, and which have become active recently. (I only examined addresses having more than 100BTC in them)

BTC    when activated    address
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
450     2016-2017 1EXMbzUdJAzsimm2ALzwRW3JnahSXuayuJ
200     2017          1J1TpQjCizvH8TfnCMKoz1qh75nPoua23M
200     2017          12XafG5uejzEvTUD1p2fwECFDfpL94B4mb
10000 2015          1Le6MkiTvkorvC1JwYXzQUSfqA3ebzGW7N
332     2017          19t4yqHj3YQTmQr22Y5ffEFPpNb2h4kkPM
2270   2015-2017 1GDCa1L4Z8DBZQv8gWK8k1HZkMdFy4mbGU
700     2017         155BWJVfvVhUXsHG6nKu9ZFswv3oEbJJMk
988     2017         1rqA6iteBVryQV3yjF7DHR3Mew8PhxNV8
5185   2017         1kmGdkFoLatLh92EBBLkVPNT4sKbc3ryq
3192   2017         19QDGMRKdZ9BpDZP2Re6yaDqNQ7zN4wo1D  
347     2016-2017 1PVgK7vJff3ftdbNukkWQFk2Qx5HzXNeXx
250     2017         1A7UjtqmZdW67daZcbTFzU8qtnCapUFuhd
1000   2017         12Xds1x9wMgJSAmpnchFQrg5BUPHbwJ3ec
1000   2017         12wHYjaPmCtAyorBMQcnJx24ifjZPSy7L2


I would say it is surprising how many BTC, came back to life.