[ANNOUNCEMENT] Ixcoin 0.3.24.2 SECOND mandatory update released

[makomk]

On Sept 1rst 2011 at 00:12:51 UTC (in under a week), the new client will switch over to a new Ixcoin-specific pchMessageStart peering marker from the original Bitcoin marker. This change was recommended by a few although we haven't had reports of any issues with this yet. Better safe than sorry. The updated Ixcoin nodes will not be able to communicate with non-updated Ixcoin clients after that date. This will require a restart of the Ixcoin client on or after Sept 1rst. (commit)"

That only stops the two halves of the network from communicating directly; it doesn't prevent blocks generated on one half being valid on the other if you can transfer them over in some other way. In fact I've tested this with a pair of nodes locally and 0.3.24.2 does appear to consider the longer 20032-block chain perfectly valid, I just can't get it to propagate across the network for some reason. Something's really quite broken...

[Spacy]

On Sept 1rst 2011 at 00:12:51 UTC (in under a week), the new client will switch over to a new Ixcoin-specific pchMessageStart peering marker from the original Bitcoin marker. This change was recommended by a few although we haven't had reports of any issues with this yet. Better safe than sorry. The updated Ixcoin nodes will not be able to communicate with non-updated Ixcoin clients after that date. This will require a restart of the Ixcoin client on or after Sept 1rst. (commit)"

That only stops the two halves of the network from communicating directly; it doesn't prevent blocks generated on one half being valid on the other if you can transfer them over in some other way. In fact I've tested this with a pair of nodes locally and 0.3.24.2 does appear to consider the longer 20032-block chain perfectly valid, I just can't get it to propagate across the network for some reason. Something's really quite broken...

"...I just can't get it to propagate across the network for some reason..."

And you still don't get it?

[makomk]

"...I just can't get it to propagate across the network for some reason..."

And you still don't get it?

I definitely don't. I'm running 0.3.24.2 clients, they're connected to other nodes with the changes, when I pointed a 0.3.24.2 client at another node which had the 20032-block long chain it quite happily downloaded it and accepted it as the valid longest chain, and yet it still doesn't seem to have propagated to the rest of the network. There are even other nodes out there with it now; I can start a fresh 0.3.24.2 node with a clean datadir and pick up 20032 blocks.

[Clipse]

"...I just can't get it to propagate across the network for some reason..."

And you still don't get it?

I definitely don't. I'm running 0.3.24.2 clients, they're connected to other nodes with the changes, when I pointed a 0.3.24.2 client at another node which had the 20032-block long chain it quite happily downloaded it and accepted it as the valid longest chain, and yet it still doesn't seem to have propagated to the rest of the network. There are even other nodes out there with it now; I can start a fresh 0.3.24.2 node with a clean datadir and pick up 20032 blocks.

Still dont get it ?

[makomk]

Still dont get it ?

Get what? Please, clue me in if it's so obvious...

Edit: If I'm reading the debug logs right, every IXcoin 0.3.24.1 and 0.3.24.2 nodes I'm connecting to now has 20032 blocks. It's interesting that http://bitcoinx.com/ixcoin/ still says 20029 though.
Edit 2: Oh, and if this is accurate all blocks mined and transactions confirmed on the 0.3.24.1+ branch of the fork since it split off should now be invalid and at 0 confirmations respectively. Too bad for the users on that side, eh?

[makomk]

I think in the upgrade from the old client to the new client that the current blockchain was preserved and coins were preserved. SO... what happens if:

1) The old blockchain is 51%+ of the combined Ixcoin network.
2) The old blockchain is mined quickly while the new blockchain lags.
3) All of the old blockchain users upgrade their client.

Presumably since they now have the new client, the most networking power, and the longest chain, then all of the others who were mining on the new client find their blockchain invalidated?

This is pretty much what should happen, yes. In practice upgrading your client doesn't seem to send the blockchain to the network properly and I ended up having to give it a helping hand. It would probably have happened naturally in the end if enough people had upgraded though. (Of course, why upgrade if your transactions and mined blocks are then at risk of getting invalidated unexpectedly?)

[Lumpy]

(Of course, why upgrade if your transactions and mined blocks are then at risk of getting invalidated unexpectedly?)

Exactly. The whole system falls apart.

[makomk]

Exactly. The whole system falls apart.

Well, we'll see what happens once people read this thread and/or spot the recent block-chain reorganization I guess...

[Spacy]

Hm ok I was wrong, it looks like it was possible to inject an alien blockchain into the new client  So he probably will change back the "messageStart" and the bad miners have helped to speed up the blockgeneration, so that 20055 is reached earlier ;-)

[simonk83]

I'm running the new client on my machine, my pool and the bitparking exchange. All show the block count as 20027. If you're running the old client I'm pretty sure transfers to/from the exchange won't work as it's on the new client.

Hi mate, sent you this in a PM yesterday:

I deposited 72 IX to your exchange around 2 days ago.   As IX is taking sooooo long to find blocks, it looks like the address expired before the 6 confirmations were hit.

Here are the details:


Date: 31/08/2011 06:56
To: <check your pm>
Debit: -72.52465552
Net amount: -72.52465552


Would you be able to check it out when you get a spare second?

Thanks mate, much appreciated, let me know if you need any more info.


Thinking about it though, the txn got to 5 confirmations and that was block 20026, so that'd mean the 6th should have been 20027, which Oldminer appears to have screwed with (good job there by the way  ).  Not sure what that means for my coins. 

I'm not hugely upset right now as they're worth sod all and I don't expect that to change, but if the planets align and they suddenly skyrocket in value I'll be pissed

[Oldminer]

Thinking about it though, the txn got to 5 confirmations and that was block 20026, so that'd mean the 6th should have been 20027, which Oldminer appears to have screwed with (good job there by the way  ).  

Sorry , but what the fuck are you talking about 

[simonk83]

Thinking about it though, the txn got to 5 confirmations and that was block 20026, so that'd mean the 6th should have been 20027, which Oldminer appears to have screwed with (good job there by the way  ). 

Sorry , but what the fuck are you talking about 

Was I talking to you?

[Oldminer]

Thinking about it though, the txn got to 5 confirmations and that was block 20026, so that'd mean the 6th should have been 20027, which Oldminer appears to have screwed with (good job there by the way  ). 

Are you retarded?

[smoothie]

Thinking about it though, the txn got to 5 confirmations and that was block 20026, so that'd mean the 6th should have been 20027, which Oldminer appears to have screwed with (good job there by the way  ). 

Are you retarded?

LOL shut the fuck up. lol

[simonk83]

Thinking about it though, the txn got to 5 confirmations and that was block 20026, so that'd mean the 6th should have been 20027, which Oldminer appears to have screwed with (good job there by the way  ).  

Are you retarded?

LOL shut the fuck up. lol

At least he's still committed to denying it.   Like anyone gives a shit.  Either he's Thomas or he isn't.  Either way he's got issues.

(Oh, and Oldminer, seems you need it explaining to you, I was talking "about" you, not "to" you.   Subtle difference there.  See now I'm talking "to" you and calling you a dipshit.  See how that works?).

[Oldminer]

Thinking about it though, the txn got to 5 confirmations and that was block 20026, so that'd mean the 6th should have been 20027, which Oldminer appears to have screwed with (good job there by the way  ).  

Are you retarded?

LOL shut the fuck up. lol

At least he's still committed to denying it.  

Wow and just when I thought smoothie was the stupidest cunt on the forum along comes another candidate batting for the trophy... 

[simonk83]

Thinking about it though, the txn got to 5 confirmations and that was block 20026, so that'd mean the 6th should have been 20027, which Oldminer appears to have screwed with (good job there by the way  ).  

Are you retarded?

LOL shut the fuck up. lol

At least he's still committed to denying it.  

Wow and just when I thought smoothie was the stupidest cunt on the forum along comes another candidate batting for the trophy...  

Your clever gibes are scathing and have taught me the error of my ways.

[smoothie]

Thinking about it though, the txn got to 5 confirmations and that was block 20026, so that'd mean the 6th should have been 20027, which Oldminer appears to have screwed with (good job there by the way  ).  

Are you retarded?

LOL shut the fuck up. lol

At least he's still committed to denying it.  

Wow and just when I thought smoothie was the stupidest cunt on the forum along comes another candidate batting for the trophy... 

LOL yeah i'm so stupid I've pocketed over 427 BTC total over the past 3.5 weeks of crypto-craziness lol.

That's what stupid people roll with...mega profits lol.

[Oldminer]

Thinking about it though, the txn got to 5 confirmations and that was block 20026, so that'd mean the 6th should have been 20027, which Oldminer appears to have screwed with (good job there by the way  ).  

Are you retarded?

LOL shut the fuck up. lol

At least he's still committed to denying it.  

Wow and just when I thought smoothie was the stupidest cunt on the forum along comes another candidate batting for the trophy...  

Your clever jibes are scathing and have taught me the error of my ways.

Good. At least you can learn.

Btw, I think you fucked your username up. Did you mean to put it down as 'simple simon'?   

 

[simonk83]

Thinking about it though, the txn got to 5 confirmations and that was block 20026, so that'd mean the 6th should have been 20027, which Oldminer appears to have screwed with (good job there by the way  ).  

Are you retarded?

LOL shut the fuck up. lol

At least he's still committed to denying it.  

Wow and just when I thought smoothie was the stupidest cunt on the forum along comes another candidate batting for the trophy...  

Your clever jibes are scathing and have taught me the error of my ways.

Good. At least you can learn.

Btw, I think you fucked your username up. Did you mean to put it down as 'simple simon'?

 

Oh dude.... really?  

Ok, I'm backing away from this argument, I don't think I'm smart enough to keep up with this level of intellectualism.     Good work though, it takes a man of particular talents to destroy his own credibility in an argument.  Great job!