Bottlecaps 2.1 UPDATE REQUIRED - HARDFORK JULY 4 2014 to 200% Annual PoS

[skyhigh2004]

I am logged in.

The forks seem to be coming from multipool. The network hashrate has been relativity stable around 100-150Mh the last week or so. When mutlipool added caps to the rotation the network hashrate jumped by up to 700Mh in a matter of minutes

The difficulty adjusted rather quickly and the pool moved on. The difficulty once again adjusted rather quickly and they came back. This seems to have caused the fork yesterday. It appears to be the same issue today. The chain was forked and verns pool and the cryptsy wallet followed the longer chain. Vern pool was  the only pool to be moved to the new chain so the hashrate dropped to 50Mh when multipool left. Causing the difficulty to drop dramatically and bring multipool back in a continuing cycle.

Due to the difficulty algorithm coin generation should only be minimally effected by this. I have asked for caps to be removed from the multipool rotation. When i return home i will release a temporary client with the new checkpoints awaiting the release of 1.4

I am sorry for any loss created by this unfortunate situation. I am doing my best to get the chain as reliable as it once was. I assure you i will do everything in my power to prevent this in the future.

This really doesn't explain the fork.  Blaming a pool which now other pools are doing the same thing for a fork with your coin seems rather irresponsible.  There are now already two other autoswitching pools out there one of which doesn't even tell you what coin it is mining and at what hashrate.  If you want to put blame onto a pool for a fork with your blockchain maybe you should put the blame on all the muliswitching pools that mine CAP not just the big one?  Or just everyone that is mining it period?  Maybe CAPs should have a warning that only small time pools and miners are allowed to mine as a rapid increase or decrease in the hashrate could fork the chain and inadvertently destroy the coin.

As MarkM posted I would also love to hear the technical explanation as to why a spike in hashrate forked your blockchain.  Were you hoping it never took off and the hashrate stayed miniscule?  The hashrate going up considerably seems to be natural growth to me once a coin is profitable to mine.  

[flound1129]

I'd say the truth is the dev doesn't know what caused the fork.

Interesting how the finger pointing started before any investigation was done.

[skyhigh2004]

I'd say the truth is the dev doesn't know what caused the fork.

Interesting how the finger pointing started before any investigation was done.

Agreed. 

[not.you]

Well shouldn't everyone have switched to the chain with more hashrate at some point?  How is it that more than one chain stuck around the network for an extended period?  Orphans happen on every cryptocoin but what I haven't seen before is two competing chains both co-existing on the network.

[Jaden]

So, is the forked issue not fixed yet? I was mining along at Silverwolf's pool and then poof, everything stopped. And, CAP is no longer listed on Cryptsy.

[bcp19]

So, is the forked issue not fixed yet? I was mining along at Silverwolf's pool and then poof, everything stopped. And, CAP is no longer listed on Cryptsy.

CAP is still on cryptsy.

[Aurum]

If Cryptsy and Big Vern caused the fork then their chain should be orphaned.

[B.T.Coin]

I'd say the truth is the dev doesn't know what caused the fork.

Interesting how the finger pointing started before any investigation was done.

Totally agree.
As far as I know, every altcoin wants to gain in hashrate as soon as possible so they get more stable and less volitile to 51-attacks. So blaming a pool that actually gives you what you want is not the right thing to do.

[Jaden]

I see that now, but Silverwolf's pool is still down. Odd.

So, is the forked issue not fixed yet? I was mining along at Silverwolf's pool and then poof, everything stopped. And, CAP is no longer listed on Cryptsy.

CAP is still on cryptsy.

[jonoiv]

If Cryptsy and Big Vern caused the fork then their chain should be orphaned.

i sent just under 500 to cryptsy and nothing showing,  the transaction shows confirmed in my wallet but nothing at cryptsy at all! not even pending.  So does this mean i have lost my 500?

[Damnsammit]

How is anyone mining this right now?

I have no clue...

[John Eden]

I'd say the truth is the dev doesn't know what caused the fork.

Interesting how the finger pointing started before any investigation was done.

We do not know if it was caused directly by multipool. The timing just seemed to perfect for it not to be.

It is not any easy decision choosing the chain to be considered valid. Since the only exchanges to currently trade the coin are on the same chain as you we are going with the longer chain.

[Damnsammit]

Well my mind is blown.  I'm too stupid to understand what a fork actually does to a coin.

I want to be involved with Bottlecaps, but I can't get the client to sync and I can no longer solo mine.  I've tried a few pools and they don't seem to be stable... currently mining on the Multipool that you are saying is causing the problems...



more confusion...

[Lauda]

Wow, bad news for caps for now 

[John Eden]

I am working on the new client now. Verifying i have nodes on the correct chain and can get a client to sync to the correct chain relieably

[flound1129]

I'd say the truth is the dev doesn't know what caused the fork.

Interesting how the finger pointing started before any investigation was done.

We do not know if it was caused directly by multipool. The timing just seemed to perfect for it not to be.

It is not any easy decision choosing the chain to be considered valid. Since the only exchanges to currently trade the coin are on the same chain as you we are going with the longer chain.

A pool mining a coin cannot cause a hardfork.  The fact that you are even considering a pool as a possible reason for the hardfork, as someone else said, is incredibly irresponsible and suggests incompetence as a dev.  Especially when the pool in question had all of your recommended addnodes in the config since day 1.

A hardfork is caused by a segmented network where blocks on both chains become fully confirmed.  This means that whatever pools were on the other chain were disconnected from the main network long enough to mine and fully confirm blocks.

What I suspect happened is that Vern's pool or another pool did not have the right addnodes, but was operating fine for a while because it was well connected.  Most likely, their coin daemon was restarted at some point last night, and did not fully reconnect to all the nodes or connected to a different set of nodes that was already forked.  Then they continued to mine and fully confirm at least 1 block (which requires 25 confirms) before the two networks reconnected to each other.  Multipool and the other pools/solo miners on the main chain had also mined 25 or more blocks.

[SoulSlayerPT]

Well my mind is blown.  I'm too stupid to understand what a fork actually does to a coin.

I want to be involved with Bottlecaps, but I can't get the client to sync and I can no longer solo mine.  I've tried a few pools and they don't seem to be stable... currently mining on the Multipool that you are saying is causing the problems...



more confusion...

Well here you have a good explanation! https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Block_chain

If the normal chain forks, some people are working and other people on other chain, so when john decides what chain stays, the other chain coins are lost.

Got it? 

[Damnsammit]

What I suspect happened is that Vern's pool or another pool did not have the right addnodes, but was operating fine for a while because it was well connected.  Most likely, their coin daemon was restarted at some point last night, and did not fully reconnect to all the nodes or connected to a different set of nodes that was already forked.  Then they continued to mine and fully confirm at least 1 block (which requires 25 confirms) before the two networks reconnected to each other.  Multipool and the other pools/solo miners on the main chain had also mined 25 or more blocks.

I was reading somewhere on here that a slower block times (namely under 2 minutes) were a bad idea for crypto-coins.  Is this the reason?

[Damnsammit]

Well here you have a good explanation! https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Block_chain

If the normal chain forks, some people are working and other people on other chain, so when john decides what chain stays, the other chain coins are lost.

Got it? 

I think I got it... sounds like I'm going to be losing some CAPs... oh well as long as it gets fixed

[flound1129]

I'd say the truth is the dev doesn't know what caused the fork.

Interesting how the finger pointing started before any investigation was done.

We do not know if it was caused directly by multipool. The timing just seemed to perfect for it not to be.

It is not any easy decision choosing the chain to be considered valid. Since the only exchanges to currently trade the coin are on the same chain as you we are going with the longer chain.

Multipool and Cryptsy are not on the same chain.  If you are keeping Cryptsy's chain you are orphaning all of my miners' blocks.  The chain that had the most nodes should be the one considered valid, not just the one that the exchanges happened to be using.

I predict your coin will suffer serious credibility issues if you keep the smaller chain as you will be screwing over a far greater number of miners.