Bitcoin Forum
October 24, 2017, 09:45:42 AM *
News: Latest stable version of Bitcoin Core: 0.15.0.1  [Torrent]. (New!)
 
   Home   Help Search Donate Login Register  
Pages: [1]
  Print  
Author Topic: Can Somebody Explain The "Strange Blocks" Found On BlockExplorer.com?  (Read 1717 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?
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
1508838342
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1508838342

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1508838342
Reply with quote  #2

1508838342
Report to moderator
Garrett Burgwardt
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 448


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: 2814


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!