"SC pool finds a block 'it shouldn't have'"

[johnj]

Anyone have any information about this?

[1715067283]

1715067283

[1715067283]

1715067283

[1715067283]

1715067283

[1715067283]

1715067283

[Spacy]

"SC pool finds a block 'it shouldn't have'"

It must be magic !!!  

[johnj]

"SC pool finds a block 'it shouldn't have'"

It must be magic !!!  

Pretty sure it isn't magic, but I won't rule it out.

I'm just genuinely curious what happened.

[Etlase2]

does this mean an even block or whatever that SC's cronies are supposed to have a monopoly on?

[johnj]

does this mean an even block or whatever that SC's cronies are supposed to have a monopoly on?

I'm not sure.  I asked about it in chat and everyone got quiet. Almost as if they don't like me 

[MaGNeT]

does this mean an even block or whatever that SC's cronies are supposed to have a monopoly on?

I'm not sure.  I asked about it in chat and everyone got quiet. Almost as if they don't like me 

I guess there are some big errors in the coding and error in the fixes for those errors in the coding.
And because source is closed, only CH does the crappy programming and real bugs aren't found...

[johnj]

Damn, soon 50% of all alt coin will be about Solidcoin... maybe we shut just move all these posts to a new sub forum under alt currency...


Anyway to address your question:  I too noticed the oddity on coinotron stat display today.  It appears to be more of a UI glitch on coinotron as he had like 4-5 "stuck" blocks right around that one, blocks that never validated and never confirmed.  I have not asked coinotron about it however.

Clear concise summary: There was an even block on coinotron's stat display, It was not legitimately solved/validated.

Theory: Coinotron is doing lots of server updates, perhaps this was a glitch side effect of some work or server load happening?

There will continue to be posts asking questions about SC until the source is released.  That should be common sense.







So which explanation is correct, and why are there separate explanations floating around?  Or am I misunderstanding something?

[johnj]

There will continue to be posts asking questions about SC until the source is released.  That should be common sense.

So which explanation is correct, and why are there separate explanations floating around?  Or am I misunderstanding something?

Mine wasn't an explanation it was a theory, I also didn't know that the official support line is on the BTC-E irc chat box.  Coinotron's a good pool but this is not the first time it or other pools have had UI glitches etc.  so that's my theory... since the block never validated in coinotron it's not really a concern to me.  Of course I guess the block explorer should be consulted bet I don't give a fuck either way.

Viper, you've maintained that you're interested in SC out of the crypto-chain advances alone and have no 'personal' involvmenet.  However, when it -appears- a pool solved an even block (a critical error in SC 2.0), you come up with a theory which you admit is just a guess, and then state 'but I don't give a fuck either way'?

I expected better 

[johnj]

There will continue to be posts asking questions about SC until the source is released.  That should be common sense.

So which explanation is correct, and why are there separate explanations floating around?  Or am I misunderstanding something?

Mine wasn't an explanation it was a theory, I also didn't know that the official support line is on the BTC-E irc chat box.  Coinotron's a good pool but this is not the first time it or other pools have had UI glitches etc.  so that's my theory... since the block never validated in coinotron it's not really a concern to me.  Of course I guess the block explorer should be consulted bet I don't give a fuck either way.

Viper, you've maintained that you're interested in SC out of the crypto-chain advances alone and have no 'personal' involvmenet.  However, when it -appears- a pool solved an even block (a critical error in SC 2.0), you come up with a theory which you admit is just a guess, and then state 'but I don't give a fuck either way'?

I expected better 

No I'm getting tired of these forums.

I agree, i wish there wasn't so much SC chatter.  But until the source is released, there will continue to be questions.  The longer the wait, and the more 'bugs' that come up, the less patient people get. Look through my earlier posts - I praised SC 1.0, before CH turned megalomaniac.  Many many SC threads would die down once the source is released, and much of this heated speculation could easily be done away with.

[johnj]

So anyone who -knows- what happened want to comment?  Does anyone even know what happened?

[Spacy]

Damn, soon 50% of all alt coin will be about Solidcoin... maybe we shut just move all these posts to a new sub forum under alt currency...


Anyway to address your question:  I too noticed the oddity on coinotron stat display today.  It appears to be more of a UI glitch on coinotron as he had like 4-5 "stuck" blocks right around that one, blocks that never validated and never confirmed.  I have not asked coinotron about it however.

Clear concise summary: There was an even block on coinotron's stat display, It was not legitimately solved/validated.

Theory: Coinotron is doing lots of server updates, perhaps this was a glitch side effect of some work or server load happening?

No shit for brains, it means that with a code tweak anyone can mine an even block.

You really understand how cryptocurrencies work? You can modify everything on YOUR client, but the p2p network won't accept your crap block 

[Spacy]

Once again shit for brains, with the right tweak it will allow anyone to mine an even block that will accepted by the block chain. That is until CH locks them out.

Only the nodes which run your "bcxhackedsolidcoind" will accept the shitty nodes Why didn't you already hack the chain? Simple, because you are not capable...

[Etlase2]

BEX, I'm sure coinhunter is a douche and all and you have a good reason for the epic nerd rage you have for him and all, but you just come off as the bigger douche every time. Coinhunter is like the happy friendly retard that everyone secretly makes fun of, you are the super angry down's retard that everyone is afraid to go near.

[wigglyuk]

BEX, I'm sure coinhunter is a douche and all and you have a good reason for the epic nerd rage you have for him and all, but you just come off as the bigger douche every time. Coinhunter is like the happy friendly retard that everyone secretly makes fun of, you are the super angry down's retard that everyone is afraid to go near.

Two retards in control of a cryptocurrency ... or maybe they're the same retard, using one another to give free press to SLC.

[Ten98]

All that happened was Coinotron had a small issue with his found block reporting. If you check those even blocks on the BlockExplorer you will see they are actually mined by trusted nodes and not Coinotron.

[johnj]

How about we stay on topic before i go in rage mode?

Now, what is this block they shouldnt have found?

There seems to bet two theories:  1 is that a pool did solve an even block, which is why three different releases had to be put out in a matter of hours.  2 is that it was just a GUI glitch, which allegedly can be confirmed in the SC block explorer, but the only one I'm aware of, I don't see an obvious 'search' function, it only shows the last x blocks (but I may be missing something obvious).

As far as I can tell, no one in any position of authority on the matter has made any kind of statement, and we still need a way to verify whatever they say to be correct.

[makomk]

All that happened was Coinotron had a small issue with his found block reporting. If you check those even blocks on the BlockExplorer you will see they are actually mined by trusted nodes and not Coinotron.

The longer version of this explanation that I heard in IRC is that Coinotron was assuming that if the current block was 40123 and it mined a block, then that block would be 40124. That's true in Bitcoin but in Solidcoin only trusted nodes can mine even blocks, so until one arrives the mining nodes instead try and mine a block that replaces the last odd block in case the trusted nodes have rejected the existing one.

Entirely coincidentally, RealSolid has recently been using his trusted nodes to reject valid blocks mined by ArtForz. (Originally they had time stamps that were up to 40 seconds outdated, presumably due to a quirk of his mining software; this is normal in Bitcoin and nodes don't reject blocks based on it. From what I can tell the change in rules was entirely unannounced to ensure that ArtForz wasted as much mining power as possible.) It appears that the problems Coinotron encountered also happen to coincide with the times when RealSolid was blocking ArzForz from mining, though I'm not 100% sure about this.

[Bobnova]

All that happened was Coinotron had a small issue with his found block reporting. If you check those even blocks on the BlockExplorer you will see they are actually mined by trusted nodes and not Coinotron.

The longer version of this explanation that I heard in IRC is that Coinotron was assuming that if the current block was 40123 and it mined a block, then that block would be 40124. That's true in Bitcoin but in Solidcoin only trusted nodes can mine even blocks, so until one arrives the mining nodes instead try and mine a block that replaces the last odd block in case the trusted nodes have rejected the existing one.

The real question for that one is, how did Coinotron find a block when the block count said it was the trusted nodes' turn?