<<  >> (p.9)
    Author Topic: Blockchain split of 4 July 2015  (Read 45692 times)

    • favdesu
    Legendary
    *
    Offline Offline

    Activity: 1764
    Merit: 1000



    View Profile WWW
    July 04, 2015, 01:19:45 PM
     #161
    Quote from: Altcoin4life on July 04, 2015, 01:15:07 PM
    Is there a way to force those spv mining to have their work count as less to discourage it?

    if I understand it correctly, they are losing a lot of money at the moment due to mining on an obsolete fork... so that's punishment
    Bitcoin Experiment: Financial Freedom with Faucets?! Week 19

  • BitUsher
    Legendary
    *
    Offline Offline

    Activity: 994
    Merit: 1035


    View Profile
    July 04, 2015, 01:23:32 PM
     #162
    Quote from: EvilDave on July 04, 2015, 01:08:08 PM
    Just for some extra clarity..........
    For consumer level users: make sure that you (or your wallet provider) are on Bitcoin 0.9.5 or later, and wait for 30 confirmations on your transfers.
    For miners:  stop SPV mining, validate everything or lose income.

    (and, obviously, transfer all your BTC into nice stable NXT....... Grin )



    Consumers on 0.9.5 or later are safe an do not have to wait for 30 confirmations. This recommendation is for SPV/web wallet wallet users who are unaware which version they are connected to. Most web wallets and SPV wallets are safe in reality but users should either check or wait 30 confirmations.

    This is a large warning to users to not only be careful and skeptical about bitcoin but be that more careful with using any alt as they have a small fraction of developers debugging , testing and warning users compared to bitcoin.

    Quote from: LFC_Bitcoin on July 04, 2015, 01:01:51 PM
    So this will only potentially effect people who are making transaction, sending & receiving coins atm?
    If I'm a simple HODLER & haven't & won't be buying any coins this weekend I'm safe & ok yes? My BTC's in several wallets & paper wallets are ok & I can totally ignore this?
    Thanks in advance to anybody who responds.

    This only effect Bitcoin users using a node that is 0.9.4 or earlier whether directly or through an SPVweb wallet. The only risk they have is if a malicious attacker tries to double spend with them. To avoid this check with your connected node to make sure you are up to date, use an up to date bitcoin core node, or wait 30 confirmations.

    There was never any risks to you losing your coins in paper wallets or cold storage even if you started up an old version of core.

  • dooglus
    Legendary
    *
    Offline Offline

    Activity: 2940
    Merit: 1334



    View Profile
    July 04, 2015, 01:30:57 PM
     #163
    Quote from: BitUsher on July 04, 2015, 12:41:06 PM
    As part of the BIP66 rules, once 950 of the last 1,000 blocks were version 3 (v3) blocks, all upgraded miners would reject version 2 (v2) blocks.

    Early morning UTC on 4 July 2015, the 950/1000 (95%) threshold was reached. Shortly thereafter, a small miner (part of the non-upgraded 5%) mined an invalid block--as was an expected occurrence. Unfortunately, it turned out that roughly half the network hash rate was mining without fully validating blocks (called SPV mining), and built new blocks on top of that invalid block.

    Note that the roughly 50% of the network that was SPV mining had explicitly indicated that they would enforce the BIP66 rules. By not doing so, several large miners have lost over $50,000 dollars worth of mining income so far.

    The bolded points:

    95% of the network was claiming to be mining v3 blocks,
    50% of the network was SPV mining,
    but only 50% of the SPV miners were claiming to be mining v3 blocks?

    Doesn't that mean that 50% of the SPV miners, and so 25% of the network wasn't claiming to be mining v3 blocks?

    If so, how did we reach the 95% trigger?
    Just-Dice                 ██             
              ██████████         
          ██████████████████     
      ██████████████████████████ 
    ██████████████████████████████
    ██████████████████████████████
    ██████████████████████████████
    ██████████████████████████████
    ██████████████████████████████
    ██████████████████████████████
    ██████████████████████████████
    ██████████████████████████████
    ██████████████████████████████
        ██████████████████████   
            ██████████████       
                ██████                		   Play or Invest                 ██             
              ██████████         
          ██████████████████     
      ██████████████████████████ 
    ██████████████████████████████
    ██████████████████████████████
    ██████████████████████████████
    ██████████████████████████████
    ██████████████████████████████
    ██████████████████████████████
    ██████████████████████████████
    ██████████████████████████████
    ██████████████████████████████
        ██████████████████████   
            ██████████████       
                ██████                		   1% House Edge

  • S4VV4S
    Hero Member
    *****
    Offline Offline

    Activity: 1582
    Merit: 502


    View Profile
    July 04, 2015, 01:36:23 PM
     #164
    Quote from: dooglus on July 04, 2015, 01:30:57 PM
    Quote from: BitUsher on July 04, 2015, 12:41:06 PM
    As part of the BIP66 rules, once 950 of the last 1,000 blocks were version 3 (v3) blocks, all upgraded miners would reject version 2 (v2) blocks.

    Early morning UTC on 4 July 2015, the 950/1000 (95%) threshold was reached. Shortly thereafter, a small miner (part of the non-upgraded 5%) mined an invalid block--as was an expected occurrence. Unfortunately, it turned out that roughly half the network hash rate was mining without fully validating blocks (called SPV mining), and built new blocks on top of that invalid block.

    Note that the roughly 50% of the network that was SPV mining had explicitly indicated that they would enforce the BIP66 rules. By not doing so, several large miners have lost over $50,000 dollars worth of mining income so far.

    The bolded points:

    95% of the network was claiming to be mining v3 blocks,
    50% of the network was SPV mining,
    but only 50% of the SPV miners were claiming to be mining v3 blocks?

    Doesn't that mean that 50% of the SPV miners, and so 25% of the network wasn't claiming to be mining v3 blocks?

    If so, how did we reach the 95% trigger?

    Perhaps they were only claiming to be mining v3 blocks but not actually doing so... ?

  • BitUsher
    Legendary
    *
    Offline Offline

    Activity: 994
    Merit: 1035


    View Profile
    July 04, 2015, 01:38:58 PM
     #165
    Quote from: dooglus on July 04, 2015, 01:30:57 PM
    Quote from: BitUsher on July 04, 2015, 12:41:06 PM
    As part of the BIP66 rules, once 950 of the last 1,000 blocks were version 3 (v3) blocks, all upgraded miners would reject version 2 (v2) blocks.

    Early morning UTC on 4 July 2015, the 950/1000 (95%) threshold was reached. Shortly thereafter, a small miner (part of the non-upgraded 5%) mined an invalid block--as was an expected occurrence. Unfortunately, it turned out that roughly half the network hash rate was mining without fully validating blocks (called SPV mining), and built new blocks on top of that invalid block.

    Note that the roughly 50% of the network that was SPV mining had explicitly indicated that they would enforce the BIP66 rules. By not doing so, several large miners have lost over $50,000 dollars worth of mining income so far.

    The bolded points:

    95% of the network was claiming to be mining v3 blocks,
    50% of the network was SPV mining,
    but only 50% of the SPV miners were claiming to be mining v3 blocks?

    Doesn't that mean that 50% of the SPV miners, and so 25% of the network wasn't claiming to be mining v3 blocks?

    If so, how did we reach the 95% trigger?

    I has nothing directly to do with BIP66 (although this is what was the case this time) as this scenario would have existed for any invalid block being picked up by SPV miners. F2Pool and Antpool who were SPV mining actually did adopt v3 blocks/ BIP 66 but due to not validating BTC Nuggets block (to gain a slight latency advantage) they began mining on the wrong chain. Thus it was BTC Nuggets who was part of the 5% who didn't upgrade to the newest v3 blocks.  

    Quote from: S4VV4S on July 04, 2015, 01:36:23 PM
    Perhaps they were only claiming to be mining v3 blocks but not actually doing so... ?

    It is not possible unless they quickly switched back to v2 blocks after updating to v3 and the 95% thresh-hold was reached. All evidence points to a risk they undertook by the process of SPV mining itself where they picked up on  BTC Nuggets invalid block without validating it.

  • scarsbergholden
    Hero Member
    *****
    Offline Offline

    Activity: 686
    Merit: 500



    View Profile
    July 04, 2015, 01:39:30 PM
     #166
    Quote from: S4VV4S on July 04, 2015, 01:36:23 PM
    Quote from: dooglus on July 04, 2015, 01:30:57 PM
    Quote from: BitUsher on July 04, 2015, 12:41:06 PM
    As part of the BIP66 rules, once 950 of the last 1,000 blocks were version 3 (v3) blocks, all upgraded miners would reject version 2 (v2) blocks.

    Early morning UTC on 4 July 2015, the 950/1000 (95%) threshold was reached. Shortly thereafter, a small miner (part of the non-upgraded 5%) mined an invalid block--as was an expected occurrence. Unfortunately, it turned out that roughly half the network hash rate was mining without fully validating blocks (called SPV mining), and built new blocks on top of that invalid block.

    Note that the roughly 50% of the network that was SPV mining had explicitly indicated that they would enforce the BIP66 rules. By not doing so, several large miners have lost over $50,000 dollars worth of mining income so far.

    The bolded points:

    95% of the network was claiming to be mining v3 blocks,
    50% of the network was SPV mining,
    but only 50% of the SPV miners were claiming to be mining v3 blocks?

    Doesn't that mean that 50% of the SPV miners, and so 25% of the network wasn't claiming to be mining v3 blocks?

    If so, how did we reach the 95% trigger?

    Perhaps they were only claiming to be mining v3 blocks but not actually doing so... ?


    Is there a explorer we could see on this fork, because it would be good to compare block times and since what block has this started from their claims.
      BITMIXER.IO   High Volume Bitcoin MIXER  

  • dooglus
    Legendary
    *
    Offline Offline

    Activity: 2940
    Merit: 1334



    View Profile
    July 04, 2015, 01:42:10 PM
     #167
    Quote from: S4VV4S on July 04, 2015, 01:36:23 PM
    Quote from: dooglus on July 04, 2015, 01:30:57 PM
    Quote from: BitUsher on July 04, 2015, 12:41:06 PM
    As part of the BIP66 rules, once 950 of the last 1,000 blocks were version 3 (v3) blocks, all upgraded miners would reject version 2 (v2) blocks.

    Early morning UTC on 4 July 2015, the 950/1000 (95%) threshold was reached. Shortly thereafter, a small miner (part of the non-upgraded 5%) mined an invalid block--as was an expected occurrence. Unfortunately, it turned out that roughly half the network hash rate was mining without fully validating blocks (called SPV mining), and built new blocks on top of that invalid block.

    Note that the roughly 50% of the network that was SPV mining had explicitly indicated that they would enforce the BIP66 rules. By not doing so, several large miners have lost over $50,000 dollars worth of mining income so far.

    The bolded points:

    95% of the network was claiming to be mining v3 blocks,
    50% of the network was SPV mining,
    but only 50% of the SPV miners were claiming to be mining v3 blocks?

    Doesn't that mean that 50% of the SPV miners, and so 25% of the network wasn't claiming to be mining v3 blocks?

    If so, how did we reach the 95% trigger?

    Perhaps they were only claiming to be mining v3 blocks but not actually doing so... ?

    I think you missed my point.
    Just-Dice                 ██             
              ██████████         
          ██████████████████     
      ██████████████████████████ 
    ██████████████████████████████
    ██████████████████████████████
    ██████████████████████████████
    ██████████████████████████████
    ██████████████████████████████
    ██████████████████████████████
    ██████████████████████████████
    ██████████████████████████████
    ██████████████████████████████
        ██████████████████████   
            ██████████████       
                ██████                		   Play or Invest                 ██             
              ██████████         
          ██████████████████     
      ██████████████████████████ 
    ██████████████████████████████
    ██████████████████████████████
    ██████████████████████████████
    ██████████████████████████████
    ██████████████████████████████
    ██████████████████████████████
    ██████████████████████████████
    ██████████████████████████████
    ██████████████████████████████
        ██████████████████████   
            ██████████████       
                ██████                		   1% House Edge

  • monbux
    Legendary
    *
    Offline Offline

    Activity: 1736
    Merit: 1029



    View Profile WWW
    July 04, 2015, 01:45:43 PM
     #168
    Quote from: jl2012 on July 04, 2015, 01:10:30 PM
    Quote from: LFC_Bitcoin on July 04, 2015, 01:01:51 PM
    So this will only potentially effect people who are making transaction, sending & receiving coins atm?
    If I'm a simple HODLER & haven't & won't be buying any coins this weekend I'm safe & ok yes?
    Thanks in advance to anybody who responds.

    Hodlers are unaffected

    Payers, technically speaking, are unaffected, despite that your payees may require more confirmations than usual

    Payees, with Bitcoin core 0.9.5 or above, are unaffected.

    Payees, with anything else, please follow the instructions in the header of the forum
    So, just to confirm, you ARE able to send and receive transactions on bitcoin wallets that aren't 0.9.5 and up, as long as you wait for an extra 30 confirmations?
    I'm using blockchain.info as my day to day use wallet.

  • Quickseller
    Copper Member
    Legendary
    *
    Offline Offline

    Activity: 3066
    Merit: 2377


    View Profile
    July 04, 2015, 01:49:36 PM
     #169
    Quote from: dooglus on July 04, 2015, 01:42:10 PM
    Quote from: S4VV4S on July 04, 2015, 01:36:23 PM
    Quote from: dooglus on July 04, 2015, 01:30:57 PM
    Quote from: BitUsher on July 04, 2015, 12:41:06 PM
    As part of the BIP66 rules, once 950 of the last 1,000 blocks were version 3 (v3) blocks, all upgraded miners would reject version 2 (v2) blocks.

    Early morning UTC on 4 July 2015, the 950/1000 (95%) threshold was reached. Shortly thereafter, a small miner (part of the non-upgraded 5%) mined an invalid block--as was an expected occurrence. Unfortunately, it turned out that roughly half the network hash rate was mining without fully validating blocks (called SPV mining), and built new blocks on top of that invalid block.

    Note that the roughly 50% of the network that was SPV mining had explicitly indicated that they would enforce the BIP66 rules. By not doing so, several large miners have lost over $50,000 dollars worth of mining income so far.

    The bolded points:

    95% of the network was claiming to be mining v3 blocks,
    50% of the network was SPV mining,
    but only 50% of the SPV miners were claiming to be mining v3 blocks?

    Doesn't that mean that 50% of the SPV miners, and so 25% of the network wasn't claiming to be mining v3 blocks?

    If so, how did we reach the 95% trigger?

    Perhaps they were only claiming to be mining v3 blocks but not actually doing so... ?

    I think you missed my point.
    Changing the headers does not actually do anything except show that the miners are voting "yes".

    The miners should have started to implement the new rules of the soft fork as soon as they showed the new headers, however some were not doing this, and voted yes but did not implement the new rules
    ★ ★ ★ ██████████████████████★██★██★██★██[★█████████████████████
    ████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████
    ████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████
    ████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████
    ████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████
    ████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████
    ████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████
    ████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████
    ████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████
    ████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████
    ████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████
    ████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████
    ████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████    		 ★ ★ ★

  • BitUsher
    Legendary
    *
    Offline Offline

    Activity: 994
    Merit: 1035


    View Profile
    July 04, 2015, 01:52:26 PM
     #170
    Quote from: monbux on July 04, 2015, 01:45:43 PM
    So, just to confirm, you ARE able to send and receive transactions on bitcoin wallets that aren't 0.9.5 and up, as long as you wait for an extra 30 confirmations?
    I'm using blockchain.info as my day to day use wallet.

    All users on any wallet can send and receive Tx just fine. The Tx were being picked up on both chains. The risk and reason you would need to wait 30 confirmations had to deal with someone attempting to create a double spend attack where you are using a wallet on 0.9.4 and before that is vulnerable and possibly may be on the wrong chain.

    In other words :
    Someone pays you 100 dollars to your SPV wallet which is connected to a node on 0.9.4 or before. That node just so happens to be on the wrong chain. You start to receive confirmations coming in and assume the transaction is good. The attacker is aware of the forked chain and respends the same BTC on the other chain. When your node makes the correction and jumps on the correct chain it invalidates your BTC that was previously confirmed on the wrong chain.

  • jl2012 (OP)
    Legendary
    *
    Offline Offline

    Activity: 1792
    Merit: 1137


    View Profile
    July 04, 2015, 02:04:24 PM
     #171
    Quote from: monbux on July 04, 2015, 01:45:43 PM
    Quote from: jl2012 on July 04, 2015, 01:10:30 PM
    Quote from: LFC_Bitcoin on July 04, 2015, 01:01:51 PM
    So this will only potentially effect people who are making transaction, sending & receiving coins atm?
    If I'm a simple HODLER & haven't & won't be buying any coins this weekend I'm safe & ok yes?
    Thanks in advance to anybody who responds.

    Hodlers are unaffected

    Payers, technically speaking, are unaffected, despite that your payees may require more confirmations than usual

    Payees, with Bitcoin core 0.9.5 or above, are unaffected.

    Payees, with anything else, please follow the instructions in the header of the forum
    So, just to confirm, you ARE able to send and receive transactions on bitcoin wallets that aren't 0.9.5 and up, as long as you wait for an extra 30 confirmations?
    I'm using blockchain.info as my day to day use wallet.


    Yes, all wallets are working but you should wait longer if you are not using Bitcoin Core 0.9.5 or above

    I believe blockchain.info wallet is vulnerable
    Donation address: 374iXxS4BuqFHsEwwxUuH3nvJ69Y7Hqur3 (Bitcoin ONLY)
    LRDGENPLYrcTRssGoZrsCT1hngaH3BVkM4 (LTC)
    PGP: D3CC 1772 8600 5BB8 FF67 3294 C524 2A1A B393 6517

  • yayayo
    Legendary
    *
    Offline Offline

    Activity: 1806
    Merit: 1024



    View Profile
    July 04, 2015, 02:05:25 PM
     #172
    A very serious event for sure - but seems to have been mostly fixed already.

    It shows, that relying on SPV wallets is not a good idea at all. Only full nodes offer full security. That's why excessive increases in blocksize are dangerous: The number of full nodes will decline further, because the average user doesn't have the resources to run them. In turn, the system as a whole will become less secure and more vulnerable to events like this.

    ya.ya.yo!
    .
    ..1xBit.com   Super Six..    		▄█████████████▄
    ████████████▀▀▀
    █████████████▄
    █████████▌▀████
    ██████████  ▀██
    ██████████▌   ▀
    ████████████▄▄
    ███████████████
    ███████████████
    ███████████████
    ███████████████
    ███████████████
    ▀██████████████    		███████████████
    █████████████▀
    █████▀▀       
    ███▀ ▄███     ▄
    ██▄▄████▌    ▄█
    ████████       
    ████████▌     
    █████████    ▐█
    ██████████   ▐█
    ███████▀▀   ▄██
    ███▀   ▄▄▄█████
    ███ ▄██████████
    ███████████████    		███████████████
    ███████████████
    ███████████████
    ███████████████
    ███████████████
    ███████████▀▀▀█
    ██████████     
    ███████████▄▄▄█
    ███████████████
    ███████████████
    ███████████████
    ███████████████
    ███████████████    		         ▄█████
            ▄██████
           ▄███████
          ▄████████
         ▄█████████
        ▄██████████
       ▄███████████
      ▄████████████
     ▄█████████████
    ▄██████████████
      ▀▀███████████
          ▀▀███    ████
              ▀▀    ██▀    		          ▄▄██▌
          ▄▄███████
         █████████▀
     ▄██▄▄▀▀██▀▀
    ▄██████     ▄▄▄
    ███████   ▄█▄ ▄
    ▀██████   █  ▀█
     ▀▀▀     ▄    ▀▄▄█▀
    ▄▄█████▄    ▀▀▀
     ▀████████
       ▀█████▀ ████
          ▀▀▀ █████
              █████    		       ▄  █▄▄ █ ▄
         ▀▄██▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀
          ▀ ▄▄█████▄█▄▄
        ▄ ▄███▀    ▀▀ ▀▀▄
      ▄██▄███▄ ▀▀▀▀▄  ▄▄
      ▄████████▄▄▄▄▄█▄▄▄██
     ████████████▀▀    █ ▐█
    ██████████████▄ ▄▄▀██▄██
     ▐██████████████    ▄███
      ████▀████████████▄███▀
      ▀█▀  ▐█████████████▀
           ▐████████████▀
           ▀█████▀▀▀ █▀    		.
    Premier League
    LaLiga
    Serie A    		.
    Bundesliga
    Ligue 1
    Primeira Liga    		.
    ..TAKE PART..

  • Vaccomondus
    Full Member
    ***
    Offline Offline

    Activity: 224
    Merit: 100


    View Profile
    July 04, 2015, 02:13:15 PM
     #173
    Quote from: jl2012 on July 04, 2015, 01:10:30 PM
    Quote from: LFC_Bitcoin on July 04, 2015, 01:01:51 PM
    So this will only potentially effect people who are making transaction, sending & receiving coins atm?
    If I'm a simple HODLER & haven't & won't be buying any coins this weekend I'm safe & ok yes?
    Thanks in advance to anybody who responds.

    Hodlers are unaffected

    Payers, technically speaking, are unaffected, despite that your payees may require more confirmations than usual

    Payees, with Bitcoin core 0.9.5 or above, are unaffected.

    Payees, with anything else, please follow the instructions in the header of the forum

  • Slark
    Legendary
    *
    Offline Offline

    Activity: 1862
    Merit: 1004


    View Profile
    July 04, 2015, 02:47:50 PM
     #174
    Quote from: yayayo on July 04, 2015, 02:05:25 PM
    A very serious event for sure - but seems to have been mostly fixed already.

    It shows, that relying on SPV wallets is not a good idea at all. Only full nodes offer full security. That's why excessive increases in blocksize are dangerous: The number of full nodes will decline further, because the average user doesn't have the resources to run them. In turn, the system as a whole will become less secure and more vulnerable to events like this.

    ya.ya.yo!
    What kind of resource are you talkin about? The only thing you need really is disc space (for now blockchain info is about 42GB big) every stationary PC or laptop is capable of storing more.
    It is not resources we lack, it is that people are lazy is the problem.

  • loshia
    Legendary
    *
    Offline Offline

    Activity: 1610
    Merit: 1000


    View Profile
    July 04, 2015, 02:50:37 PM
     #175
    Chinese are famous with their skils Grin
    Please help the Led Boy aka Bicknellski to make us a nice Christmas led tree and pay WASP membership fee here:
    https://bt.irlbtc.com/view/643999.msg7191563#msg7191563
    And remember Bicknellski is not collecting money from community;D

  • Sakarias-Corporation
    Hero Member
    *****
    Offline Offline

    Activity: 574
    Merit: 501


    Call me Alice. just Alice.


    View Profile WWW
    July 04, 2015, 02:51:21 PM
     #176
    Quote from: Slark on July 04, 2015, 02:47:50 PM
    Quote from: yayayo on July 04, 2015, 02:05:25 PM
    A very serious event for sure - but seems to have been mostly fixed already.

    It shows, that relying on SPV wallets is not a good idea at all. Only full nodes offer full security. That's why excessive increases in blocksize are dangerous: The number of full nodes will decline further, because the average user doesn't have the resources to run them. In turn, the system as a whole will become less secure and more vulnerable to events like this.

    ya.ya.yo!
    What kind of resource are you talkin about? The only thing you need really is disc space (for now blockchain info is about 42GB big) every stationary PC or laptop is capable of storing more.
    It is not resources we lack, it is that people are lazy is the problem.

    I don't think you understand....
    For some people it will take weeks or worst case a month+ to download the QT...

  • neurotypical
    Hero Member
    *****
    Offline Offline

    Activity: 672
    Merit: 503


    View Profile
    July 04, 2015, 02:51:43 PM
     #177
    Cool, i almost had a heart attack as I came really relax after a workout and swimming in the pool. This sounded pretty fucking catastrophic. Glad im paranoid and never went outside Bitcoin QT and always keep it updated. It shows how you can't trust anything that doesn't download the entire blockchain locally. This is a huge problem since in the future maybe it will be impossible for a lot of people to deal with huge ass blockchains. It's also impractical for mass adoption, most people will not deal with full nodes like us nerds do.

  • RustyNomad
    Sr. Member
    ****
    Offline Offline

    Activity: 336
    Merit: 251



    View Profile WWW
    July 04, 2015, 02:58:35 PM
     #178
    Quote from: Sakarias-Corporation on July 04, 2015, 02:51:21 PM
    Quote from: Slark on July 04, 2015, 02:47:50 PM
    Quote from: yayayo on July 04, 2015, 02:05:25 PM
    A very serious event for sure - but seems to have been mostly fixed already.

    It shows, that relying on SPV wallets is not a good idea at all. Only full nodes offer full security. That's why excessive increases in blocksize are dangerous: The number of full nodes will decline further, because the average user doesn't have the resources to run them. In turn, the system as a whole will become less secure and more vulnerable to events like this.

    ya.ya.yo!
    What kind of resource are you talkin about? The only thing you need really is disc space (for now blockchain info is about 42GB big) every stationary PC or laptop is capable of storing more.
    It is not resources we lack, it is that people are lazy is the problem.

    I don't think you understand....
    For some people it will take weeks or worst case a month+ to download the QT...

    Plus the bandwidth consumed everyday in staying updated. Not everybody is sitting on a 'no-limits' connection.

  • chiguireitor
    Legendary
    *
    Offline Offline

    Activity: 872
    Merit: 1014


    Coins, Games & Miners


    View Profile WWW
    July 04, 2015, 03:05:48 PM
     #179
    Problem solved: switch to a smaller but more dedicated dev's pool (kano, slush, etc) and don't give crap about variance.
    Rarepepe.party - Invest in a TCG + RPG game | UniversalMolecule | Want to play a fun Galaga-like game? clicky here

  • jonald_fyookball
    Legendary
    *
    Offline Offline

    Activity: 1302
    Merit: 1019


    Core dev leaves me neg feedback #abuse #political


    View Profile
    July 04, 2015, 03:06:06 PM
     #180
    Quote from: yayayo on July 04, 2015, 02:05:25 PM
    A very serious event for sure - but seems to have been mostly fixed already.

    It shows, that relying on SPV wallets is not a good idea at all.
    ya.ya.yo!

    I don't agree.  SPV is fine for everyday and small transactions.
    Plus you can verify large received transactions on several places if you dont
    have a full node.
    proof LN isn't Decentralized           official Electron Cash wallet
    Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 [9] 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 »  All
      Print  
Page 8
Viewing Page: 9

IRLBTC™ © 2025 IRLBTC.com