|
|
|
|
|
Each block is stacked on top of the previous one. Adding another block to the top makes all lower blocks more difficult to remove: there is more "weight" above each block. A transaction in a block 6 blocks deep (6 confirmations) will be very difficult to remove.
|
|
|
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Remember remember the 5th of November
Legendary
 Offline
Activity: 1862
Merit: 1011
Reverse engineer from time to time
|
 |
October 08, 2011, 09:28:47 PM |
|
piuk, your link to Deepbit is wrong. The link leads to deepbit.org which is wrong and the correct one is deepbit.net, and it sounds suspicious...you didnt try to phish me did you?
|
BTC:1AiCRMxgf1ptVQwx6hDuKMu4f7F27QmJC2
|
|
|
|
piuk (OP)
|
|
October 08, 2011, 10:00:33 PM |
|
It should look something like your diagram showing the next block when the chains finally converge. Needs testing though as I don't know what would happen if an already orphan chain split again. Another good idea, will add it soon. piuk, your link to Deepbit is wrong. The link leads to deepbit.org which is wrong and the correct one is deepbit.net, and it sounds suspicious...you didnt try to phish me did you?
You caught me. This has all been an elaborate scam to phish deepbit passwords  deepbit.com .net and .org all point to the same ip hosted by Hetzner Online. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
piuk (OP)
|
|
October 12, 2011, 12:21:04 AM |
|
Your on the block height page, click on the hash. Bit confusing i know. |
|
|
|
netrin
Sr. Member
Offline
Activity: 322
Merit: 251
FirstBits: 168Bc
|
|
October 12, 2011, 12:45:12 AM
Last edit: October 13, 2011, 04:54:59 AM by netrin |
|
Nice, I see you now redirect to the block if there are no orphans. The base http://pi.uk.com/bitcoin/ returns a 404. Timestamps such as "13:56:51 09/10/2011" are both dyslexic and ambiguous. One can only guess from your -.com TLD that it's 10 September. EDIT: Oh wait, I assumed incorrectly, you're using European, 9 October. Please use YYYY-MM-DD HH:mm:ss Zulu. The Chinese will thank you.  EDIT2: No, I assumed that I assumed incorrectly. But I was incorrect. You ARE using American notation: 20:10:39 29/09/2011 can only mean 29 September. ISO 8601 and UTC are our friends. |
|
|
|
|
piuk (OP)
|
|
October 15, 2011, 01:39:54 AM |
|
Nice, I see you now redirect to the block if there are no orphans. The base http://pi.uk.com/bitcoin/ returns a 404. Timestamps such as "13:56:51 09/10/2011" are both dyslexic and ambiguous. One can only guess from your -.com TLD that it's 10 September. EDIT: Oh wait, I assumed incorrectly, you're using European, 9 October. Please use YYYY-MM-DD HH:mm:ss Zulu. The Chinese will thank you. EDIT2: No, I assumed that I assumed incorrectly. But I was incorrect. You ARE using American notation: 20:10:39 29/09/2011 can only mean 29 September. ISO 8601 and UTC are our friends. Thanks for the heads up on the 404. Personally dates seem most natural to me as hh:mm:ss dd/mm/yy but i've changed them to ISO 8601 anyway. I've added a WebGL globe showing online nodes @ http://pi.uk.com/bitcoin/nodes-globe . You need chrome or to enable WebGL in safari or firefox. Use your show wheel to zoom. If you want more accurate data countries and hostnames can be seem on http://pi.uk.com/bitcoin/connected-nodesI'm also thinking of moving the site to it's own domain anyone got any good name ideas? |
|
|
|
netrin
Sr. Member
Offline
Activity: 322
Merit: 251
FirstBits: 168Bc
|
|
October 15, 2011, 05:24:03 AM |
|
EDIT: Oh wait, I assumed incorrectly, you're using European, 9 October. Please use YYYY-MM-DD HH:mm:ss Zulu. The Chinese will thank you. Personally dates seem most natural to me as hh:mm:ss dd/mm/yy but i've changed them to ISO 8601 anyway. 谢谢 I'm also thinking of moving the site to it's own domain anyone got any good name ideas? bitebi.com (bitcoin in pinyin) seems up for sale. |
|
|
|
|
piuk (OP)
|
|
October 15, 2011, 11:39:05 PM |
|
谢谢
您的欢迎 Don't really like bitebi. I've moved it to http://www.blockchain.info Simple & to the point, still open to new suggestions though. |
|
|
|
netrin
Sr. Member
Offline
Activity: 322
Merit: 251
FirstBits: 168Bc
|
|
October 16, 2011, 02:17:22 AM |
|
http://www.blockchain.info is perfect! By the way, I got the impression that your service could track relayed transactions even when not locked into a block (0/unconfirmed). I removed transaction fees from main.h and sent a tiny (0.005 BTC) transaction. The fact that I can't see it means what? 1. you won't display the transaction until it's in a block, 2. no other nodes have relayed the transaction, 3. nodes have actively rejected it (somehow), 4. or....?
|
|
|
|
|
piuk (OP)
|
|
October 16, 2011, 11:09:08 AM |
|
By the way, I got the impression that your service could track relayed transactions even when not locked into a block (0/unconfirmed). I removed transaction fees from main.h and sent a tiny (0.005 BTC) transaction. The fact that I can't see it means what? 1. you won't display the transaction until it's in a block, 2. no other nodes have relayed the transaction, 3. nodes have actively rejected it (somehow), 4. or....?
It should accept it but other nodes won't relay it so you'll have to push it directly to one me (or to eligius https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Free_transaction_relay_policy who should in turn relay it to me) |
|
|
|
Stephen Gornick
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 2506
Merit: 1010
|
|
October 21, 2011, 04:26:39 PM |
|
The site is giving an error from the web provider, Cloudflare.
|
|
|
|
|
piuk (OP)
|
|
October 22, 2011, 01:22:53 AM |
|
The site is giving an error from the web provider, Cloudflare.
Apologies for the down time, back for now but might be down again for a few hours tomorrow. Should be much more reliable after that. |
|
|
|
|
piuk (OP)
|
|
November 04, 2011, 08:48:00 AM |
|
Site will be down 9:00 - 11:00 AM - Moving to new server.
|
|
|
|
|
finway
|
|
November 04, 2011, 08:56:48 AM |
|
Nice job!
One question: why older transactions have no date/time ?
|
|
|
|
|
|
slush
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1386
Merit: 1097
|
|
November 09, 2011, 01:28:16 AM |
|
It's just my feeling or Bitcoin pools stats are completely wrong? Afaik you're detecting pools by IP, which won't work. Many pools don't have opened port 8333, for example. And your observed IPs (e.g. deepbit) are also wrong - those IPs are balancers, not mining backends and they're also subject of changes during attacks etc.
Probably only parsing website stats is a feasible way how to get sane pie chart of hashrate distribution.
|
|
|
|
|
piuk (OP)
|
|
November 10, 2011, 06:30:58 PM |
|
Nice job!
One question: why older transactions have no date/time ?
Transactions only have a received time if my node was online at the time it was made. Otherwise the timestamp from the for block it was included first in the best way to estimate the time. It's just my feeling or Bitcoin pools stats are completely wrong? Afaik you're detecting pools by IP, which won't work. Many pools don't have opened port 8333, for example. And your observed IPs (e.g. deepbit) are also wrong - those IPs are balancers, not mining backends and they're also subject of changes during attacks etc.
Probably only parsing website stats is a feasible way how to get sane pie chart of hashrate distribution.
The site has been up and down for the past few days which messes up the stats. It is advantageous for mining pools to be feel connect so even if they don't accept incoming connections eventually they will connect to me. It doesn't matter if they are balancers or not if deepbit's mining nodes are still behind them, which ip do you think is incorrect? Probably only parsing website stats is a feasible way how to get sane pie chart of hashrate distribution. How can you be sure the pool is reporting the correct has rate? |
|
|
|
|
