Etc block mined worth 109 etc! But why when reward is 4etc?

[rdbase]

I was looking at a pools rewards this morning and noticed it was unusual to see a reward given for the block reward to be very high.
As far as I know the block reward for ethereum classic is 4 etc. Well until the block reward is lowered after the new fork.
So seeing it reach 109 etc for a block was very weird to me.
Is this right?



https://gastracker.io/block/0x2eecbdf3936900e8d4fc2ff39dcee19ae9c5749b776c7a774230b474bb59dfdd

[Bathmat]

That might explain why Nicehash's profit on Dagger spiked really high this morning for a bit.

https://www.nicehash.com/algorithm/daggerhashimoto

[JanBrys]

It happened more than a few times today.

Biggest one is a block with number 7294593 with Miner Reward 844.0037 Ether
https://gastracker.io/block/0xe27c483bd306ee18575e7adabc7299d2900f71b5a14fc3b094bde7518f5b0283

Stats after Nanopool blocks mined:
https://ibb.co/fDMNhRb

[aliashraf]

It is the most weird thing ever. Theoretically this can not ever happen it is a breach of consensus. I've seen some people are suggesting it to have something with 51% attack, false!

An attacker with 100% hashpower can't enforce any consensu rule change including and most importantly block reward or to be more specific inflation policy. So what the heck?

I can imagine just one disappointing scenario: There are very few full nodes and the attacker has taken control of some while block explorers are using spv clients that have trust in compromised nodes. I'm still banging my head over and over to find other explanation.

[FloppyPurpleGherkin]

Wow, what the actual fuck

[not.you]

I'm not as familiar with ETC but can you choose your fee?  It has happened with BTC in the past where someone put the amount they wanted to transfer in the fee and the amount they wanted as the fee in the transfer portion of the transaction resulting in an enormous miner fee on the block that included the transaction.  Does ETC work this way?  Maybe someone is dumping coins to miners on purpose?

[rdbase]

It is the most weird thing ever. Theoretically this can not ever happen it is a breach of consensus. I've seen some people are suggesting it to have something with 51% attack, false!

An attacker with 100% hashpower can't enforce any consensus rule change including and most importantly block reward or to be more specific inflation policy. So what the heck?

I can imagine just one disappointing scenario: There are very few full nodes and the attacker has taken control of some while block explorers are using spv clients that have trust in compromised nodes. I'm still banging my head over and over to find other explanation.

This is what I thought when I saw it.

I'm not as familiar with ETC but can you choose your fee?  It has happened with BTC in the past where someone put the amount they wanted to transfer in the fee and the amount they wanted as the fee in the transfer portion of the transaction resulting in an enormous miner fee on the block that included the transaction.  Does ETC work this way?  Maybe someone is dumping coins to miners on purpose?

I do not think how much a sender puts in for the fee is related to how much is sent to the pools.
They divide it up between the miners on their pool in the end.

[adaseb]

This discussion is all over Reddit on https://old.reddit.com/r/EtherMining/comments/afhdl0/ethereum_classic_block_rewards_are_going_mad/

Basically you can't do a 51% attack and change the block reward. What is going on here is most likely someone is making transactions using a very high miner (gas fee) however I am puzzled as to why they would do that and what they would gain from doing so.

This happened before with ETH when there was some ICO launch and people were paying crazy high gas prices to get their transaction included in the next block.

[rdbase]

But the rewards for these pools are standardized.
They haven't changed.
Etc block rewards are 4 etc and are for each of these pools.
Shared pools divide the block rewards so they have to be the same all the time or it creates a sort of chaos.
As these 51% attacks you have mentioned are doing to the blockchains.
But I noticed when the 109etc was rewarded to the pool, each and every miner received 27.25x more than they usual would.
So the pool did pay them part of this 109etc mined block reward.

[aliashraf]

I'm not as familiar with ETC but can you choose your fee?  It has happened with BTC in the past where someone put the amount they wanted to transfer in the fee and the amount they wanted as the fee in the transfer portion of the transaction resulting in an enormous miner fee on the block that included the transaction.  Does ETC work this way?  Maybe someone is dumping coins to miners on purpose?

Yes, it works like most other coins AFAIK and I checked it, someone with a huge balance is donating crazy high fees to pools and miners! I got one scenario:

There is some ASIC manufacturer with tons of hashpower ready to attack Ethash, he is paying coins to pools while their reward system calculate shares for miners. Now this is the trick, pools are payed through coinbase of mined blocks that will eventually become orphan and coinbase transactions are not matured anyway, but miners (probably the attacker among them) are payed from pool operator's old wallets. The attacker then puts himself in charge of the chain, restores his original balance and pools are ripped, just pools! It is an attack against pools, I guess.

[rdbase]

So by bringing this thread back up
I wanted to know if this will likely happen again with the eth fork happening this month?

[fanatic26_]

So by bringing this thread back up
I wanted to know if this will likely happen again with the eth fork happening this month?

What does an ETH fork have to do with this conversation about ETC?

[rdbase]

So by bringing this thread back up
I wanted to know if this will likely happen again with the eth fork happening this month?

What does an ETH fork have to do with this conversation about ETC?

They are both on the ethereum chain. Ethereum classic is the original one.
This abnormal size in the block reward was the same date they were going to fork but it was cancelled.

Can you explain another other reason why?
It was seen on other pools as well not just this example I posted.

[Metroid]

They are both on the ethereum chain. Ethereum classic is the original one.
This abnormal size in the block reward was the same date they were going to fork but it was cancelled.

Can you explain another other reason why?
It was seen on other pools as well not just this example I posted.

They haven't been the same as soon as they split, this is not the first time it happened to etc and yet it never happened to eth. Different devs, different approaches on how to tackle issues adn as far as no eth devs talked about the problem then it means it might not be related to eth as it was on etc. I myself want to know why that happened on etc though.

[rdbase]

They are both on the ethereum chain. Ethereum classic is the original one.
This abnormal size in the block reward was the same date they were going to fork but it was cancelled.

Can you explain another other reason why?
It was seen on other pools as well not just this example I posted.

They haven't been the same as soon as they split, this is not the first time it happened to etc and yet it never happened to eth. Different devs, different approaches on how to tackle issues adn as far as no eth devs talked about the problem then it means it might not be related to eth as it was on etc. I myself want to know why that happened on etc though.

It had to be due to the upcoming ethereum hard fork. They did say there was a technical issue found (it was talked about in their meeting on youtube hence the cancellation call all the sudden) when that spike in the etc block reward happened.
It was a 100etc reward as opposed to a 4etc reward.
So this is a substantial enough amount to count as a glitch happening on the etc etherchain.

[Metroid]

It had to be due to the upcoming ethereum hard fork. They did say there was a technical issue found (it was talked about in their meeting on youtube hence the cancellation call all the sudden) when that spike in the etc block reward happened.

That was something else, it was on the eip 1283 https://ambcrypto.com/ethereum-improvement-protocol-1283-reason-for-the-delay-of-constantinople-hard-fork/

[nc50lc]

I thought that this was due to a "Conspiracy Theory" of Ethereum Classic miners colluding to attack the network, not by the upcoming fork.
I remembered that there was a thread here that discussed that, now I can't seem to find it.
BTW, this guy have asked the same question on the same date.

In reddit, they also guess that it's a 51% attack (not conspiracy at least) or a buggy client that has ridiculously high Gas setting.

[rdbase]

There was another bug found so the delay of the fork for ethereum is still extended to god only knows when.
https://www.trustnodes.com/2019/02/12/augur-bets-on-ethereum-constantinople-delay-after-another-bug-found
And the hashrate of ethereum increased overnight since this was released to the public.

[Metroid]

There was another bug found so the delay of the fork for ethereum is still extended to god only knows when.
https://www.trustnodes.com/2019/02/12/augur-bets-on-ethereum-constantinople-delay-after-another-bug-found
And the hashrate of ethereum increased overnight since this was released to the public.

There is something going on, they know something we dont know, difficulty increased from 2.3 to 2.9 in few hours. It might mean, eth price is about to increase a lot and when I say a lot I say to $200 - $350 levels after or before the fork.