Bitcoin Forum
December 09, 2016, 04:03:43 AM *
News: Latest stable version of Bitcoin Core: 0.13.1  [Torrent].
 
   Home   Help Search Donate Login Register  
Pages: [1]
  Print  
Author Topic: Can Somebody Explain The "Strange Blocks" Found On BlockExplorer.com?  (Read 1591 times)
gigabytecoin
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 280


View Profile
April 05, 2011, 07:48:20 PM
 #1

Can Somebody Explain The "Strange Blocks" Found On BlockExplorer.com?
1481256223
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1481256223

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1481256223
Reply with quote  #2

1481256223
Report to moderator
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
1481256223
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1481256223

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1481256223
Reply with quote  #2

1481256223
Report to moderator
Garrett Burgwardt
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 350



View Profile
April 05, 2011, 07:49:23 PM
 #2

The one I know of is the one that generated a few billion coins. That was a bug in the client, and the block was invalidated.
theymos
Administrator
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2506


View Profile
April 05, 2011, 10:19:11 PM
 #3

"Strange transactions" are transactions containing inputs/outputs with unusual scripts. There are no "strange blocks".

1NXYoJ5xU91Jp83XfVMHwwTUyZFK64BoAD
gigabytecoin
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 280


View Profile
April 06, 2011, 08:05:53 AM
 #4

The one I know of is the one that generated a few billion coins. That was a bug in the client, and the block was invalidated.

Can you expand on this? The one I am looking at is at the bottom of blockexplorer.com currently. It claims that 3 blocks all had different hash values and slightly different (albeit very low) number of BTC sent...

What happened there?
eMansipater
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 294



View Profile WWW
April 06, 2011, 09:43:39 AM
 #5

The one I know of is the one that generated a few billion coins. That was a bug in the client, and the block was invalidated.

Can you expand on this? The one I am looking at is at the bottom of blockexplorer.com currently. It claims that 3 blocks all had different hash values and slightly different (albeit very low) number of BTC sent...

What happened there?
Someone filled those transactions with "OP_CHECKSIG" commands in a potential denial of service attack due to the additional work incurred by the network to process them, back in July.  An update to BitCoin fixed the vulnerability without needing a fork.

If you found my post helpful, feel free to send a small tip to 1QGukeKbBQbXHtV6LgkQa977LJ3YHXXW8B
Visit the BitCoin Q&A Site to ask questions or share knowledge.
0.009 BTC too confusing?  Use mBTC instead!  Details at www.em-bit.org or visit the project thread to help make Bitcoin prices more human-friendly.
gigabytecoin
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 280


View Profile
April 06, 2011, 06:21:15 PM
 #6

The one I know of is the one that generated a few billion coins. That was a bug in the client, and the block was invalidated.

Can you expand on this? The one I am looking at is at the bottom of blockexplorer.com currently. It claims that 3 blocks all had different hash values and slightly different (albeit very low) number of BTC sent...

What happened there?
Someone filled those transactions with "OP_CHECKSIG" commands in a potential denial of service attack due to the additional work incurred by the network to process them, back in July.  An update to BitCoin fixed the vulnerability without needing a fork.

Always well spoken eMansipater.

Thank you for the clarification.
eMansipater
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 294



View Profile WWW
April 07, 2011, 01:33:18 AM
 #7

The one I know of is the one that generated a few billion coins. That was a bug in the client, and the block was invalidated.

Can you expand on this? The one I am looking at is at the bottom of blockexplorer.com currently. It claims that 3 blocks all had different hash values and slightly different (albeit very low) number of BTC sent...

What happened there?
Someone filled those transactions with "OP_CHECKSIG" commands in a potential denial of service attack due to the additional work incurred by the network to process them, back in July.  An update to BitCoin fixed the vulnerability without needing a fork.

Always well spoken eMansipater.

Thank you for the clarification.
You're more than welcome.

If you found my post helpful, feel free to send a small tip to 1QGukeKbBQbXHtV6LgkQa977LJ3YHXXW8B
Visit the BitCoin Q&A Site to ask questions or share knowledge.
0.009 BTC too confusing?  Use mBTC instead!  Details at www.em-bit.org or visit the project thread to help make Bitcoin prices more human-friendly.
Pages: [1]
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Sponsored by , a Bitcoin-accepting VPN.
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!